Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the clock.

The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Northampton Gas Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BOMBAY PRESIDENCY (RIOTS).

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information to give the House with regard to recent disturbances in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have little to add to the information that has appeared in the Press. In the Bombay Presidency riots occurred on 12th, instant at Virangam, where a mob attacked and burnt down the railway station, and other acts of destruction are reported. Troops were dispatched from Ahmedabad, and order has now been restored. Bombay city is reported to have been quiet since 11th instant.

CABLE SERVICES.

Sir J. D. REES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any improve-men can be effected in the cable services between India and this country, messages from Simla having recently taken ten days to arrive?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I understand that the delay on fully-paid ordinary telegrams between this country and India is now five days in the outward direction and from two to three days in the homeward direction. Every possible step is being taken to reduce it to more normal dimensions.

DELHI SHOOTINGS.

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will have an inquiry into the Delhi shootings in view of the serious unrest in India over the Rowlatt Bills?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the position in India, I do not propose to ask this question.

WAR TROPHIES (GERMAN SUBMARINES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the sending to Hull of certain of the German prizes, and in particular if at least one of the surrendered submarine cruisers, in order that the people of Yorkshire may have an opportunity of seeing what our seamen have had to contend with during the War?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): An ex-German submarine minelayer, U.C. 59, visited the Humber from 7th December to 20th January, during which time she was berthed for exhibition purposes at Hull and Goole. In addition, one of the large ex-German submarines, U 98, visited Middlesbrough from 10th December to 28th December, and then Whitby until 10th January. A comprehensive tour of ex-German submarines for exhibition, purposes has been carried out, and it is not contemplated to repeat these visits.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could arrange to have some of the German High Sea torpedo-boats sent there?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will convey that suggestion to the naval authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

VISITS TO BRITISH PORTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, especially in view of a recent visit of a portion of the Grand Fleet to Liverpool, he will consider sending a detachment of the Fleet to the Humber, in order to afford the people of Yorkshire an opportunity of seeing a portion of the British Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The desirability of giving the inhabitants of the British Isles an opportunity of seeing ships of the British Navy is realised, and it is hoped that later in the year it will be possible for various ports to be visited, in which case the claims of the people of Yorkshire will not be overlooked.

STOKER RATINGS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 6
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (6) whether he is aware that the modifying words, acting stoker first-class, introduced into the recent Admiralty Order allowing seamen and marines with six months' seniority to transfer to stoker first-class, with seniority to count, have increased rather than lessened the dissatisfaction prevailing in the stoker branch of the Royal Navy since the original order was promulgated; that the stoker branch of the service regard the change made in their personnel as unjust to themselves and involving a possible source of danger to navigation; and will he consider the advisability of consulting with the engineers and petty officers, Royal Navy, with the view of meeting the shortage of stoker ratings in a manner more acceptable to the ratings themselves and better calculated to fall in with the general efficiency of the Service?
(7) Whether, in view of the shortage of stoker ratings in the Royal Navy, he will consider, as an alternative to the order to which so much objection has been taken, the possibility of giving the stoker ratings better pay and better conditions with the object of attracting to the stoker branch men from the Mercantile Marine and men who have been employed in stoker work outside, seeing that, if this alternative plan were adopted, a general opinion prevails that there would be no shortage in stoker ratings?
(8) Whether he is aware that, however well qualified seamen and marines may be
to carry out the duties attending their special branches of the naval service, their lack of knowledge as to the technicalities of a stoker's duties, which in the case of stoker, first-class, take four years to acquire, can scarcely fail to affect adversely the effective manipulation of the ship's machinery, while at the same time placing greater responsibility on the engineers, chief petty officers, and petty officers, resulting in the event of an error of judgment on the part of a man under their charge of possible punishment, carrying with it loss of a badge, good conduct medal, and £15 gratuity and 2d. a day in pension; can he say whether these possibilities were taken in consideration by their Lordships before the order was promulgated; and, if not, will he have them considered, with a view of the order being withdrawn?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With the permission of the hon. Member, I propose to circulate the replies in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the answers circulated:

(6) The permission to men to transfer to, Or enter in, the stoker branch as acting stoker, first-class, without passing through the grade of stoker, second-class, has been authorised to meet the immediate need for stokers, but is a purely temporary measure. It is quite recognised that these men are not capable of performing the duties of a stoker, first-class, straight away. This is clearly shown in the orders already given that they will not be confirmed as stokers, first-class, until they have professionally qualified for that rating under the King's Regulations; and that as acting stokers, first-class, they are to be drafted under the conditions previously in force for stokers, second-class, and to be employed in lieu of stokers, second-class, until they are professionally qualified.

(7) The question of increased pay for the stoker branch as for other branches of the Royal Navy is before us as a result of the Report of the Jerram Committee.

(8) So far as this question is not covered by the answer to No. 6, I am assured that there is no ground for the fears expressed as to the greater risks and responsibility incurred by engineers, chief petty officers, and petty officers, and that therefore the suggestion of the latter part of the question as to consequential heavy punishments arising is quite unfounded.

INVEKGORDON.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 9.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the working hours at Inver-gordon have been reduced and that overtime ceases on 28th April; that the men and their families are now seeking to return to the yards from which they originally volunteered, and if he can assist these men with railway fares or even half-fares to return to their work; and that many of these men have foregone their regular leave on free pass so as to complete work?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the first and second parts of the question, it is the case that the actual working hours have been reduced, and that it is intended still further to reduce the amount of overtime so far and as soon as the exigencies of the Service admit. As regards the third part of the question, I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the men have been drawing an allowance on account of being separated from their families. Nevertheless, the question of the issue of passes for the families to return to their homes in the cases referred to in the fourth part of the question is under consideration.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE (REPORT).

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the intention of the Government with regard to the Report of the National Industrial Conference; and whether it is proposed to carry into effect the recommendations therein made?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I am taking steps to convene a further meeting of the Provisional Joint Committee on Tuesday, 29th April, in order that the intentions of the Government in regard to the Report may be made known to them in accordance with the arrangement made with the Industrial Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Kherson has been evacuated by the Allies; whether they left on account
of the activities of the Petlurist troops under Ataman Grigorieff; whether this signifies that the Petlurists have now deserted the Allies and joined the Bolshevists; and whether it is now at all possible to define clearly what forces we are actually combating in South Russia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that the attack on Kherson was carried out by the troops under Ataman Grigorieff who had previously seceded from Petlura and joined the Bolsheviks. As regards the third part of the question, such troops as remain loyal to Petlura—the number is unknown—are of anti-Bolshevik tendencies and are resisting the Soviet forces in Volhynia with some measure of success. In answer to the last part of the question the Allied forces in South Russia are opposing the Red Army of the Russian Soviet Government. There are no British troops in this theatre.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers are being sent from Mesopotamia to Russia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A small number of officers and men who have volunteered for the duty have been sent from Mesopotamia to Russia.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed in the Press an account of the march of troops from Mesopotamia to the Caspian in order to get to Baku, and the fact that they are suffering very serious hardships—are these the men he refers to?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I have not noticed that.

Mr. T. WILSON: Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that only volunteers are going?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question refers to sending soldiers from Mesopotamia to Russia. A small number of officers and men have volunteered, and have been sent there.

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his pledge that no conscripts shall be sent to Russia?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman include Baku in Russia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Baku is the end of the railway line through the Caucasus. At present it is being guarded by a British Army. This Army is not in contact with the enemy, and only remains there pending the decision of the Peace Conference.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question: Is the pledge to be observed that no conscript shall be sent to Russia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. It is perfectly true there are in Russia at the present time, cut off in the North, men who were called out under the Military Service Acts, but the Relief Force will be composed of volunteers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Does that exclude the possibility —[HON. MEMBEKS: "Order, order!"] Does my right hon. Friend's answer exclude the possibility of men having been sent from Mesopotamia to Baku on the ground that Baku, in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, is not in Russia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Any man who has been sent from Mesopotamia is a volunteer. It is only a handful of men.

INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION, 1912.

Major JAMESON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken with a view to secure the ratification and enforcement of the International Opium Convention, 1912, by those Powers which, prior to the War, had not deposited their ratification?

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. C. Harms-worth): The British Peace Delegation have submitted a proposal that all the Powers represented at the Conference should bind themselves to take such steps as may still be required on their part to bring the Opium Convention of 1912 into force, and that a Clause should be inserted in the peace terms imposing upon the enemy States the obligation of ratifying the Convention at an early date and enacting the legislation necessary to carry out its provisions. The British Delegation have further suggested that the League of Nations should be entrusted
with the duty of supervising the execution of the terms of the Convention and generally of exercising control over the international traffic in opium and other deleterious drugs.

PALESTINE OFFICERS.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Allenby has recently appointed General Clayton, chief political officer in Palestine, and Colonel Storrs, Governor of Jerusalem, to posts in Egypt; and who have filled their places in Palestine?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that both these officers are at present in Egypt, but I have no information as to their having received any appointment there, and the question of filling their places in Palestine has not therefore arisen.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

PUBLIC SECURITY.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement on the conditions in Egypt and the policy being pursued by General Allenby on behalf of His Majesty's Government in that country before the House rises for Easter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: From the general point of view of public security conditions in Egypt are more satisfactory. No incidents of any particular importance have been reported from the provinces, although in some districts in the Delta attempts have been made to interfere with railway and telephone communications. On the 12th an outbreak occurred at the convict prison at Tura, south of Cairo, and a number of convicts succeeded in escaping after a conflict with the Sudanese Guard.
No detailed information has been received at the Foreign Office as to the recent murder of British soldiers in the streets of Cairo which was reported in the Press. It is understood that General Allenby issues official communiqués to representatives of the Press in Cairo and the news is then telegraphed home by them. I mention this as it has been suggested that the Foreign Office have
suppressed information which has later reached this country through the channels of the Press.
General Allenby reports that the strike of Government employés still continues, but that the new Ministry are endeavouring to reach a settlement with the strikers. There appears to be strong opposition on the part of moderate elements to a continuation of the strike, but agitators continue to employ all means in their power to prolong it.
The policy pursued by General Allenby, in virtue of the full discretionary powers vested in him by His Majesty's Government, is to secure the co-operation of all the native elements in his task of restoring law and order and normal conditions of life throughout the country.

BAUCHI, SOUTH AFRICA (NEWSPAPER ALLEGATIONS).

Mr. SPOOR: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the flogging of two women in the open-air market-place at Bauchi, South Africa; and whether he will make inquiries as to the truth or otherwise of the statements that for passing through the Residency grounds these two women were sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and that the British resident official ordered that whilst serving their sentence the two women should receive twenty-five lashes each, while naked, in the open market-place every month?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): My attention has been called to these statements which have appeared in certain newspapers dealing with West African affairs, and which, I am informed, will shortly form the subject of an action for libel. Pending the result of the trial it would not be proper for me to comment on the allegations.

Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the statement that this flogging took place, and whether it is proposed to go on; and will he see that it is stopped in the interests of British decency?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I made it quite clear in my reply that it would not
be proper for me to make any statement on the subject pending the action in question.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that this flogging is still going on in a public place, and that the British allow it pending a libel action?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: He is not to understand anything of the sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

TROOPS RETAINED IN FAR EAST.

Sir J. D. REES: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men of upwards of thirty-seven years are still retained in the service in the Far East; and whether there is a fair prospect of their speedy demobilisation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Keighley.

"DERBY" RECRUITS.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether priority in demobilisation will be given to those men who joined His Majesty's Forces under the Derby scheme?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.

Mr. RENDALL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private A. E. Stowe, No. 1691, A Company, 16th Army Corps, Cyclist Battalion, Salonika Force, who served in Gallipoli, has only once had leave though he joined the Army on 3rd September, 1914; whether he is now in Constantinople; and when he may expect his discharge?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If Private Stowe's length of service is as stated by my hon. Friend he is eligible for demobilisation, unless he is serving under pre-war conditions and his term of Colour service is not completed. If he is eligible he will no doubt be released as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. RENDALL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War why Sapper G. Bawn, No. 286578, Meteorological Section, A.F.O.4, B.A.F., Calais, a teacher formerly employed by and applied for by the Gloucester Education Committee, is
not discharged; whether, and why, his commanding officer has informed him he will be retained under Army Order XIV. (55) of 1919; whether the Gloucester Education Committee sent a guarantee of employment slip on his behalf; if no release slip was sent by the Ministry of Labour (Appointments Branch) on Army Form Z 16; what necessity there is for the retention of the Meterological Section of the Royal Engineers in addition to the Meteorological Section of the Air Ministry, and will he now secure the discharge of Sapper G. Bawn?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Sapper Bawn is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release, and I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that he is not so registered by his Department. The "employment slip" referred to by my hon. Friend is probably a contract offer of employment, or such as to obtain his registration as a "slip man," which does not entitle him to immediate demobilisation, but gives him a certain priority if otherwise eligible for demobilisation. If this soldier is eligible under existing regulations he will, no doubt, be released as soon as circumstances permit. As regards the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the meteorological requirements of the Army are very different from those of the Royal Air Force: the former wants information mainly about the flight of projectiles and the latter about upper-air currents. The amalgamation of two sets of meteorologists whose functions are so distinct would therefore serve no useful purpose.

PROVINCIAL CENTRES (INFORMATION).

Sir J. D. REES: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any existing authority at important provincial centres or capitals of counties can be charged with the duty of answering questions by, and giving information to, the relations of soldiers seeking demobilisation, and directly or indirectly to such soldiers themselves?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answer is somewhat lengthy I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:

A Department of the War Office in London has been in existence for a considerable time for the purpose of inter-
viewing soldiers and their relatives. Those who are able to attend personally should call at the War Office, Mobilisation (Mob. 12), Bridgewater House, Cleveland Square, St. James, S.W. 1. Those not able to do so may communicate by letter with the same Department. The total numbers interviewed to date by this inquiry bureau are 3,477 officers and 17,392 other ranks and civilians. Serving soldiers may also obtain all necessary information from their commanding officers, who are in possession of full instructions. This is a more desirable procedure in their case as the work of the Departments concerned is already very considerable. In these circumstances I see no necessity for placing these duties on authorities in the provinces. I know of no existing provincial authority who could undertake them, and I think it would be impracticable to set up authorities specially for this purpose.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Colonel W. THORNE: 35.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that the pensions officer officiating between Stamford and Peterborough is preventing the old age pensioners from keeping chickens, because if they do he deducts various sums of money from their old age pensions; is the officer exceeding his duty; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I have at present no information on this matter, but I am having inquiries made. I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

Mr. RENDALL: 41.
asked the President of the Local Government Board why Mrs. Prosser, of Thornbury, Gloucester, has not received any old age pension, though it is nearly four months since she attained the age of seventy; whether Mr. A. E. Tazay, the local Customs and Excise officer, has written her saying that, after her communication to the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division, her papers were sent to the Local Government Board, since which he has heard nothing; and will he at once have this matter attended to?

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): Apparently the local pension officer refrained from issuing the pension because he considered it probable that the Local Government Board might have enter-
tained an appeal against the Pension Subcommittee's decision of the 23rd January last. I have now caused the papers as to Mrs. Prosser's claim to be returned to the pension officer, and have asked him to deliver a pension order book as soon as possible.

INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (COMMITTEE).

Mr. LUNN: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to state the names of those persons who will constitute the Committee to inquire into industrial assurance; and, in view of the many thousands of life assurance agents in the Kingdom, he will agree to at least one member of the Committee being a direct representative of the agents and collectors?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I am not at present in a position to state the names of the persons who will constitute the Committee to inquire into industrial assurance. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 27th March to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston.

Mr. BUTLER LLOYD: 47.
asked whether the Government have decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into industrial life assurance; if so, whether direct representation of the agents and collectors will be given on the Committee of Inquiry; when will the Committee be appointed; and what will be the terms of reference?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. It has been decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into industrial life assurance. The terms of reference to, and the constitution of the Committee, have not yet been definitely settled, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 27th March to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston. I am not at present able to state when the Committee will be appointed.

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS (PAPER).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware
that, as a result of the Board's decision to remove the embargo upon the importation of manufactured paper at the end of the present month, many paper mills are being either worked short time or entirely closed, throwing many hundreds of workpeople out of work; whether he has received requests from the trade, employers and employed, that the import restrictions should remain operative until September; and whether, under the circumstances, he can see his way to favourably consider such requests?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Elland Division on the 7th April.

GLASS LAMP CHIMNEYS (IMPORT LICENCES).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, after, encouraging British glass manufacturers to make oil-lamp chimneys during the War, he has now given a licence for the importation of 20,000 gross of chimneys without first offering the contract to British manufacturers; whether the contract has been given to firms who before the War were agents of German and Austrian companies; whether, in view of the present cost of material, coal, and labour, it is impossible for home manufacturers to compete with such imports; and whether such policy is a violation of the decision of the Government to prevent dumping?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Licences have been granted to some thirty firms to import glass lamp chimneys to the aggregate number stated in the question. The licences were granted on the joint recommendation of the Ministry of Munitions and the London Chamber of Commerce, the recommendation being founded on the extreme scarcity of lamp chimneys of British manufacture. The chimneys are being imported in the ordinary way of trade, and no Government contract is involved. I may add that no suggestion has been received from any quarter that the restriction on these articles should be maintained.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the firms making these chimneys were not asked to contract in any way, and is he aware also that these licences are being granted to firms
who, as the Government were informed at a very early part of the War, were German or Austrian agents?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand there is no question of contract in it at all; or no question of asking anybody for a contract; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me the facts he has in mind I will investigate them.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that these agents, of German and Austrian firms will not be permitted to dump these articles in this country, when we are capable of making them ourselves?

Captain, W. BENN: Is the, hon. Gentleman aware that chimneys for oil lamps are a necessity for poor people?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And for others.

RAILWAY FACILITIES (BELFAST).

Mr. T. W. BROWN: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have yet been taken to bring the price of workmen's tickets on the Belfast and County Down Railway into line with the price of workmen's tickets on English and Scottish railways?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid that I cannot add to the replies given on this subject on the 10th March and 7th April to the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman copies.

AGRICULTURE. (EMPLOYMENT OF GERMAN PRISONERS).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many German prisoners are being employed on agricultural land in Kent; what are the conditions under which they are being let out, including wages; and is he aware that there are complaints that these prisoners are being employed while a number of men in the localities are seeking work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The number of German prisoners employed in agriculture in the county of Kent is 360. The conditions under which prisoners are sent out provide
that farmers must pay the full local rates of wages for prisoners of war, subject to small abatements in cases where the farmer has to fetch the prisoners from the depot, and no guard is provided. A complaint was received in December last that prisoners had replaced civilian labour on a farm near Maidstone, but this proved on inquiry to be without foundation. No complaints have been received by the Board from Kent during the last four months, but I shall be glad to have inquiries made into any alleged cases brought to my notice, as strict instructions have been issued by the Board that prisoner labour must in no way interfere with the employment of civilians.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS, CHEPSTOW.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received a protest from a conference of the trade unionists of Monmouthshire against the rents charged for the houses recently built by the Government at Chepstow; whether 14s. 6d. per week is being charged there for five-room cottages; and whether he can take action so that the rents of these cottages can be brought down to a figure that will not exceed the rents charged for similar accommodation in other industrial parts of the county of Monmouth?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The rents charged at present are:

"A" type house, 5 rooms, 8s. 6d. per week.
"B" type house (small), 6 rooms, 13s. 6d. per week.
"B" type house (large), 6 rooms, 14s. 6d. per week.

The question whether such rents are reasonable under present circumstances is a matter of opinion, but the whole question is now being looked into.

MODELS AND PLANS.

Mr. GILBERT: 42.
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he has in the possession of his Department any models or plans for suggested new housing schemes both for town and country
demands; and whether, in view of the interest in this matter, he will arrange for an exhibiton of same so that local authorities, officials, and others interested in housing can view and examine any recent suggestions made to his Department so that housing schemes to be submitted to his Department under the new Bill may have the latest improvements and all up-to-date suggestions combined in all local housing schemes and plans?

Dr. ADDISON: A manual, containing type, plans, and a good deal of information for the guidance of local authorities in the preparation of housing schemes, was issued some days ago, and copies were sent to all housing authorities. I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a copy. Local authorities will be kept informed of any improvements or suggestions which may be of value.

RELIEF MEASURES.

Mr. MACMASTER: 53.
asked the Minister of Reconstruction if he is fully informed of the house famine and consequent distress that now prevails in the country districts, and in the neighbourhood of cities, towns, and villages throughout the United Kingdom; whether, pending the acquisition of land, designing and deciding upon plans, and erecting houses for permanent homes as projected, he will take steps as a measure of relief from congestion and suffering to provide temporary dwellings from the materials used in the construction of military camps and huts, and also from the materials unused and now remaining under the control of the Government or in the hands of their contractors which might be usefully and promptly employed in the construction of temporary houses; and whether he will see that these and all other necessary measures of relief are taken in the general public intrest, as well as in the interest of the working classes of the country?

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am fully aware of the great shortage in housing accommodation and I am using every endeavour to secure that it shall be met as rapidly as possible. I am willing to consider proposals for the provision of temporary accommodation on the lines suggested by the hon. Member in places where the shortage is specially acute. I cannot, however, promise that State financial assistance towards such temporary
provision will necessarily be available to the same extent as is the case of permanent housing.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from whom he expects these proposals to come?

Dr. ADDISON: A considerable number have already come in.

SUB-POSTMASTERS (HOURS).

Mr. RENDALL: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the hours of sub-postmasters are as follows in many cases: on duty 5.25 a.m. to meet the early morning mail due 5.30 a.m.; off duty 5.40 to 6.20 a.m.; on duty 6.25 a.m. till 7 a.m. to receive and dispatch mails and postmen; from 7 a.m. off duty till the office opens to the public at 8 a.m. and on duty from that hour till 7 p.m.; after 7 p.m. a mail in and one out and accounts and telegrams to be checked and verified, with other duties occupying till 8.30 p.m. and in many offices till later; and that on Sundays the early morning mails are similar to week-days and usually the office is open to the public for an hour and often there is a mail out in the afternoon and also at night; whether under modern conditions the sub-postmaster has to pay much more for clerical assistance; whether under all these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that shop hours remain reduced as in war time, he will take steps to allow the sub-postmasters to open at 9 a.m. instead of at 8 a.m. as during war; and, if not, what financial increases will he afford them?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: At country sub-offices the actual hours of duty outside the period during which counter work is performed necessarily vary according to the times at which mails are received and dispatched. As indicated in the answer to a question on the subject on the 7th instant, I am giving instructions that offices need not be opened before 9 a.m. where the district surveyor is satisfied that public inconvenience would not be occasioned thereby.

NIGHT TELEPHONISTS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).

Mr. GILBERT: 44.
asked the Postmaster General whether the general practice in the Post Office is for the staff to enjoy a
forty-eight hour week with an allowance of time for all work performed at night; whether the night telephonists are compelled to work fifty-four hours per week; whether the question of their conditions of employment was referred to the Gibb Committee, which body was disbanded by the Government before the subject was considered; and whether, having regard to the strain of continuous night work, he will grant to these men the conditions applicable to the rest of the Post Office staff?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As regards the hours and conditions of work of night telephonists, I would refer to the reply given to a question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Wednesbury on the 24th March. As then stated, the conditions of service of the class were fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Parliamentary Committee on Post Office Servants which reported in 1913; and I am not at present prepared to alter them.

PRISONER OF WAR CAMPS (INTERPRETERS).

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 18.
asked the (Secretary of State for War if the War Office is prepared to reconsider the decision arrived at in 1917 in regard to interpreters holding commissions, with the view of granting them the usual gratuity on retirement to enable them to start life afresh?

The FINANCIAL SECRETAR to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The question of the status and emoluments of interpreters in prisoner of war camps is under consideration.

ARMY COMMISSIONS (UNIVERSITY CANDIDATES).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether university candidates for the Army will in future be given seniority over cadets from Sandhurst who have joined their regiments a year previously?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Regulations under which commissions in the Regular Army may be obtained by university candidates are still in abeyance. The
matter is receiving the consideration of the Army Council. The factors which affect the question are the length of the courses and the nature of the degrees taken by the university candidate.

BRITISH TROOPS, MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many white troops we still have in Mesopotamia and Persia; how many have been sent home since the Armistice; how many who have been in Mesopotamia or Persia over-two years will have to spend the hot weather there; and what arrangements are being made to enable those with the longest service in those countries to return home first?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The strength of British white troops in Mesopotamia on the following dates was:


On 11th November, 1918
95,000


On 15th March, 1919
61,000


(Last return available.)



The number which left that country between 11th November, 1918, and 15th March, 1919, was 34,000. Under the Regulations at present in force the main qualification for demobilisation is length of service, and it is further provided in the Regulations that a proportion of each draft sent home for dispersal shall include men who have had the longest service overseas. Men are being brought home as rapidly as circumstances permit.

S.S. "CARMANIA" (DELAY).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the steamship "Car-mania" was ready to leave Liverpool for New York on the 9th inst.; whether her departure was delayed for twenty-four hours in consequence of her having to wait for troops; whether these troops could easily have been conveyed to Liverpool ready for embarkation on or before the 9th inst., and whether, in view of the waste of money and loss of tonnage involved by such action, he will have the matter carefully looked into and reprimand those who were responsible for such negligence?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The War Office was informed that the "Carmania" was to leave Liverpool on 10th April, and arrangements for the embarkation of the troops were made accordingly. Had the Department been aware that the "Carmania" would sail on the 9th the troops would certainly have been taken to Liverpool for embarkation on that date.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the only case where steamers have been delayed, and will he give instructions that, at all events, facilities are granted in order that troops may be there to wait for the steamers, and not the steamers there waiting for the troops?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a question which can only be settled on the merits of each case. There may be greater inconvenience keeping a large number of men in a port without proper arrangements for their reception than by keeping a ship in her berth.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that there is accommodation on the steamers for these men, and therefore there is no question of arrangements for accommodation in port?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL FORCE.

OVERSEAS SERVICE.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War what decisions have been arrived at which will provide an appropriate distinction to all those Territorials who accepted service overseas in 1914?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewis-ham yesterday, I am not in a position to make a statement at present, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

ARMY COUNCIL (REPRESENTATION).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the determination to reorganise the Territorial Force, he will appoint a senior officer of the Territorial Force with a seat on the Army Council?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The point will be considered in connection with the general scheme of Army reorganisation.

GERMAN TROOPS, BLACK SEA.

Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether several thousand German troops, awaiting repatriation from the Black Sea regions, are employed fighting for the Allies against the Bolshevik forces; if so, whether they are receiving any remuneration for their services as a charge on the public funds; and whether it is intended to replace them by Allied troops in the near future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. On the contrary, a number of the Germans are reported to have been incorporated in the Bolshevik forces. The second and third parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

SURPLUS ARMY HORSES (DISPOSAL).

Major JAMESON: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Army horses in France which have been boarded unfit for the Army because of age or unsoundness are being sold to the natives of the country; and if he will take steps to stop a practice which is contrary to regulations and is unmerciful?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Horses and mules sold to the inhabitants in France are quite fit for work in civil life, and have been disposed of as being surplus to the reduced requirement of the Army on demobilisation. Animals unfit for work owing to age or unsoundness are destroyed.

MISS VIOLET DOUGLAS PENNANT.

Mr. THOMAS RICHARDS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the conditions of the pledge given to the House by the Secretary of State for War in the case of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant have now been complied with, the inquiry promised is to take place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to answer this question. I am ready to lay on the Table of the House the correspondence which has passed up to the present on this subject between the Air Ministry and Miss Douglas Pennant if
that is the desire of those who are acting for her, and if the House considers it of sufficient importance.
So far as it has at present proceeded, it does not, in my opinion, disclose any case different from that which could fee made by any person superseded in any situation against those among whom and under whom she has been working. I have, however, asked for more precise definitions of the various allegations which Miss Douglas Pennant has preferred.
It is possible that some of the statements might be suitable for private persons to test in the Courts in the ordinary way; but I do not at present discern any sufficient public grounds to justify the considerable expense of an official inquiry.

Mr. RICHARDS: Is it not a fact that Miss Pennant made specific charges against certain people?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have said I am willing if those who are acting for Miss Pennant wish it, and if they think it is in her interest, to lay the correspondence on the Table of the House so that hon. Members can judge for themselves.

Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply the House with the report of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Harmsworth) in respect of which the Prime Minister has already promised an inquiry into this case?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am not prepared to lay that report on the Table. After making inquiries I ascertained that the hon. Member for Luton considered it was a private report drawn up by him for the information of the Prime Minister, and on general grounds it would be fatal to the administration of public Departments if documents of this kind prepared in this way were subsequently to be published.

Sir O. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the advice of the Prime Minister was not acted upon?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. T. WILSON: If the right hon. Gentleman lays on the Table of the House the papers referred to, will he also lay on the Table the letters of protest from Miss Pennant's subordinates?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the matter is one between this lady and the Department concerned. The correspondence I have mentioned appears to be relevant to the issue.

Mr PEMBERTON BILLING: Are we to understand that in the event of this case being taken to the Courts, all the official documents will be disclosed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not for me to attempt to lay down rules for the conduct of proceedings in the Courts.

JERRAM COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give the date when the findings of Admiral Jerram's Committee will be given to the public, both as regards officers and men?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I have been asked to answer this question. The decisions regarding the ratings will not be held back till those affecting the officers have been taken. Each will be promulgated directly they have been decided.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, will he say whether the publication of the Jerram Report as regards the men will be withheld until a decision is arrived at regarding the officers?

Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the date, because very considerable dissatisfaction has arisen out of the fact that the time has been so prolonged?

Mr. LONG: I cannot now give any definite information as to the date, but I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend as to the dissatisfaction. My information is that the lower decks are thoroughly satisfied with the inquiry that is being made and are quite prepared to allow a reasonable time.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT SERVICES.

Mr. GILBERT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in London and the suburbs at the recent increases in fares by the railways, tubes, motor omnibuses, and tramways; whether he is aware of the
overcrowded state of all these services, especially at the morning and evening crush hours; and whether, in view of the travelling population supplied by these various services, the Government will consider as to appointing a small Committee to inquire as to whether these necessary services should only be allowed to charge reasonable and maximum fares both for ordinary and season tickets, and as to whether such monopoly services should be compelled to supply proper and sufficient services to the public in return for the monopoly granted to them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Board of Trade are aware of the position, but in view of the proposed establishment of a Ministry of Ways and Communications the present does not seem the time to set up a Committee such as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. RENW1CK: Are these increases being made upon the initiative of the companies or have they been ordered by the Government; and can the hon. Gentleman say whether in either case or both cases the Government approve of the increase?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

CLAIM AGAINST IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. ADAMSON: 50 and 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) whether, in view of the statements made with reference to the alleged deficits of the British South Africa Company, he is prepared to state the total sum now claimed by the company; and whether he will now give an assurance that no obligation will be assumed by the Imperial Government for any such deficits until a statement has been made in the House and an opportunity given for its discussion; and (2) whether the attention of the Treasury has been drawn to the published statements of the British South Africa Company that they were about to make a claim upon the Imperial Government totalling over £10,000,000 sterling for administrative deficits; and whether the Treasury have obtained or will obtain copies of statements published by Messrs. Reymer, the principal firm of chartered accountants in Buluwayo, showing that the alleged deficits are in fact less than £1,770,784?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The British South Africa Company has sent in a claim against His Majesty's Government amounting provisionally to £7,569,435. This claim clearly demands the closest scrutiny, and the Government will not commit themselves to any payment without the sanction of the House of Commons. Inquiries will be made with regard to the statement published in Buluwayo which is referred to.

POST OFFICE EMPLOYMENT (EX-SOLDIERS).

Major EDWARDS: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, as far as ex-soldiers are concerned, Post Office employment is limited to professional soldiers only and that men of the New Armies need not apply; and, if this is so, whether he will consider the advisability of abolishing this restriction and judge the applications of all ex-soldiers on their merits only?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A preference is being given as far as possible to disabled soldiers, and these are regarded as eligible for situations as established postmen irrespective of length of service in the Army. For posts requiring the service of able-bodied men I feel bound to give a preference to long-service professional soldiers and to auxiliary postmen who have served with the forces during the War, and I regret that I see no likelihood of posts being available for the men of the New Armies generally. The number of ex-soldier applicants is greatly in excess of the number of vacancies available.

GOVERNMENT BUILDING, NEWGATE STREET.

Major BARNETT: 52.
asked whether the new Government building which is to be erected on the vacant site east of the General Post Office is to be extended southwards across the end of Newgate Street; whether it will have any architectural relation with the existing Post Office building; and whether he will consider the desirability of carrying the new traffic route to the east of the new building, and thus exposing to public view the classical architecture of the Goldsmiths' Hall?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: There is no intention of extending the new building south wards across the end of Newgate Street. The architecture has been designed with due regard to other buildings in the neighbourhood. Any question of new traffic routes is proper to the Corporation of London. I understand that a proposal of the kind suggested has already been considered by them and rejected.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WOMEN CLERKS).

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 54.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that women whose services as Grade I. clerks in a Government Department are being dispensed with have been asked by the Civil Service Commission whether they were prepared to accept employment as Grade II. clerks in other Departments; and whether, in view of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, which was passed to stabilise wages during this transition period) this policy on the part of the Civil Service Commission to secure the services of these women at reduced rates will be reconsidered?

Mr. PRATT: I have ascertained that the procedure indicated in the first part of the question is only adopted by the Civil Service Commissioners when no Grade I. posts are available. I am not aware of any provision in the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act which requires the payment of Grade I. remuneration to an employé engaged for and employed on Grade II. duties.

PROVINCIAL POLICE FORCE (INQUIRY).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in connection with the inquiry into the pay and other conditions of service of members of the Provincial Police Force, representatives of the rank and file are to be invited to give evidence as in the case of the Metropolitan Police?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The answer is in the affirmative. Representatives of the various ranks from several county and borough police forces have already been heard.

GOLD PRODUCTION, BRITISH EMPIRE.

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: 56 and 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that the gold production of the British Empire for the year 1918 amounted to £50,700,000 compared with £58,700,000 for 1915, equal to a drop of 13½ per cent.; that the world's production for 1918 is estimated at £77,600,000 as compared with £96,800,000 for the year 1915, thus showing a drop of 20 per cent.; and that the world's production for 1918 is estimated at the still lower figure of £72,000,000, which is equal to a decline of 23.1 per cent, since 1915; and whether, in view of this position, the probability of a further material decline of production in the future and the expansion of credit due to the War, he will reconsider the conclusions arrived at by Lord Inchcape's Committee; and (2) if he is aware that owing to the depreciation of our currency gold can be sold to materially better advantage abroad, and that imperial gold and silver coin commands in the Indian bazaars a higher premium; whether he is aware of the effect of an increased production of gold in re-establishing our depreciated currency on a gold basis; and whether, in. view of the danger of a further severe fall in the gold production of the Empire, he will consider the desirability of giving every encouragement to the gold-mining industry within the Empire to increase its output?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): There is nothing in the report of Lord Inchcape's Committee to suggest that producers of gold are not entitled to obtain for their produce the best price available in the most favourable market, and I am now considering in what manner this can be secured, regard being had to the rise in the American exchange which has taken place since the Committee reported.

LONDON UNIVERSITY.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: 58.
asked whether the agreement made between the Treasury and the Senate of the University of London in 1899, whereby a home was provided for the university at South Kensington, including a promise of further accommodation as the university was ex-
tended and developed under the Reconstitution Act of 1898, still holds good; and whether the scheme announced in March, 1912, for transferring the headquarters of the university to Bloomsbury has been finally abandoned?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Accommodation has been, and still is, provided for the University of London at South Kensington, in accordance with the Treasury Minute of 16th February, 1899, which, as explained by the late Prime Minister in the House of Commons on the 7th March, 1912, must not be construed as admitting liability on the part of His Majesty's Government to provide for all possible requirements of the university in the future. Questions as to the future of the university would, I suggest, be better addressed to the Minister of Education.

CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can make any statement to the House respecting the decision of the Government in the matter of making some addition to the pensions of Civil servants whose pensions are, in very many cases, totally inadequate to meet the present cost of living, and who, in consequence of the low purchasing power of their pensions, are suffering considerable hardship?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the arrangement recently agreed to. As I explained in reply to a question of the hon. Member for Islington East, on the 9th instant, this arrangement cannot be extended to pensioners who were not in receipt of war bonus at the time of their retirement.

The following is the statement referred to:

The Treasury has had under consideration an application made by the Civil Service Federation, the National Joint Committee of Post Office Associations, the Society of Civil Servants and other Service Associations that the present war bonus to permanent Civil servants should be converted into permanent and pensionable salary or wages. As a result of a conference on the 28th March, an agreement was arrived at to meet the case of officers who have been or may be retired
on pension while in receipt of war bonus, without prejudice to either party in regard to any permanent settlement which may hereafter be arrived at as to the relation of war increase to pensionable salary, and the agreement will apply to all officers who may retire before such a settlement is reached. The terms of the agreement provide:

The pay and emoluments on which Civil servants in receipt of war bonus have been pensioned or granted retiring gratuities, or on which they would normally be pensioned or granted retiring gratuities in, future, shall be increased by 25 per cent. if such pay and emoluments do not exceed. £300 per annum, and by 20 per cent. if such pay and emoluments exceed £300 per annum, subject to the following provisions:

(a) That no Civil servants can reckon, as a maximum, for supplementary pension, or retiring gratuity under this agreement more than the full amount of the war bonus of which he was or is in receipt at the time of his retirement, or the average amount of such bonus during the last three years of service in cases where pension cannot legally be awarded on the actual final salary and emoluments;
(b) That the minimum additional amount on which the supplementary pension or gratuity is calculated shall be £26 per year in the case of men and £20 per year for women (subject to the maximum at (a) above);
(c) No officer with salary and emoluments exceeding £300 a year shall receive a smaller supplementary pension or gratuity than he would have received if his salary and emoluments had been exactly £300 a year.

AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES (WITHDRAWAL).

Mr. CAUTLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the withdrawal of the Agricultural Companies from the farms which is to take place before the House meets again is causing the gravest anxiety among farmers; that the present sowing, season is already delayed by weather, and the utmost possible supply of labour is necessary to ensure the land being sown; that these companies contain several thousand men of whom many are highly
skilled agriculturists and it is impossible to replace them; and whether he cannot at once arrange that the withdrawal of these agricultural companies shall be postponed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject was considered recently by the Cabinet, and the War Office arranged to carry out the withdrawal of these companies as slowly as is compatible with essential military requirements.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Would it be possible to postpone it for a month?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That was carefully considered, and it is obvious that we cannot keep men for this purpose undemobilised if they are not required for military reasons.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they do not insist on their Amendments to the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill, to which this House has disagreed.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Stourport Gas Company." [Stourport Gas Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Stourport Gas Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Can the Leader of the House now tell us what business it is proposed to take on the first day and the succeeding days of the week when we reassemble after the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On the first day we shall take Supply (the salary of the Minister of Labour), which will give an opportunity of discussing unemployment benefit.
On Wednesday and Thursday my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) hopes to introduce the Budget.

NOTICES OF MOTION:

CONDITION OF IRELAND.

Mr. HARTSHORN: To call attention, on Wednesday, 7th May, to the condition of Ireland, and to move a Resolution.

FEDERAL HOME RULE FOR WALES.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: To call attention, on Wednesday, 7th May, to the question of Federal Home Rule for Wales, and to move a Resolution.

OLD OFFENDERS (MAGISTRATES' POWERS).

Mr. ROYCE: To call attention, on Wednesday, 7th May, to the limited powers of magistrates in dealing with old offenders, and to move a Resolution.

PENSIONS (SELECT COMMITTEE.)

Ordered,
That Brigadier-General Cockerill be discharged from the Select Committee on Pensions.

Ordered,
That Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

EASTER RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).

Resolved,
That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday, the 29th April."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

PEACE CONFERENCE.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
In rising to move the Adjournment of the House, I shall ask the indulgence of Members to make some observations about the present situation. My first impulse, when I returned from the Peace Conference, was to await the much advertised criticism that I had been told to expect, but inquiries—diligent inquiries—proved to me that it was not forthcoming. The reason assigned, in particular quarters is rather a remarkable one—that I must not expect criticism until, at any rate, the House has been informed as to what the Delegates have been doing. Coming from such quarters, I should not have thought that fact would be regarded as the slightest basis for any criticism. But I am fully aware that there is a good deal of impatience in the world for peace—some of it very natural impatience, and some of it, perhaps, calculated impatience. I propose to address myself to the really sincere, honest impatience which is felt throughout all lands.
The task with which the Peace Delegates have been confronted has indeed been a gigantic one. No Conference that has ever assembled in the history of the world has been confronted with problems of such variety, of such complexity, of such magnitude, and of such gravity. The Congress of Vienna was the nearest approach to it. You had then to settle the affairs of Europe. It took eleven months. But the problems at the Congress of Vienna, great as they were, sink into insignificance compared with those which we have had to attempt to settle at the Paris Conference. It is not one continent that is engaged—every continent is affected. With very few exceptions, every country in Europe has been in this War. Every country in Asia is affected by the War, except Tibet and Afghanistan. There is not a square mile of Africa that has not been engaged in the War in one way or another. Almost the whole of the nations of America are in the War, and in the far islands of the Southern Seas there are islands that have been captured, and there are hundreds of thousands of men who have come to fight in this great world
struggle. There has never been in the whole history of this globe anything to? compare to it. Ten new States have sprung into existence, some of them independent, some of them semi-independent, some of them may be Protectorates, and, at any rate, although you may not define their boundaries, you must give indications of them. The boundaries of fourteen countries have to be re-cast.
That will give some idea of the difficulties, purely of a territorial character, that have engaged our attention. But there are problems, equally great and equally important, not of a territorial character, but all affecting the peace of the world, all affecting the well-being of men, all affecting the destiny of the human race, and every one of them of a character where, if you make blunders, humanity may have to pay. Armaments, economic questions, which are the life of commerce and trade, questions of international waterways and railways, the question of indemnities—not an easy one, and not going to foe settled by telegram—and international arrangements for labour practically never attempted before! Thanks very largely to the skill and real statesmanship displayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), and thanks also to the assistance which he has had from some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and from others who are in the Trade Union movement, a great world scheme has been adopted. And there is that great organisation—a great experiment, but an experiment upon which the whole future of the globe for peace hangs—the Society of Nations.
All, and each of them separately, would? occupy months. A blunder might precipitate universal war—it may be near, it may be distant. And all nations, almost every nation on earth, engaged in the consideration of all these problems! We were justified in taking some time. In fact, I do not mind saying that it would have been imperative in some respects that we should have taken more time but for one fact, and that is that we are setting up a machinery which is capable of readjusting and correcting possible mistakes. That is why the League of Nations, instead of wasting time, has saved the time of the Conference. We had to shorten our labours and work crowded hours, long and late, because, whilst we were trying to build, we saw in many lands the foundations of society crumbling into dust, and
we had to make haste. I venture to say that no body of men ever worked harder, and that no body of men have ever worked in better harmony. I am doubtful whether any body of men with a difficult task have worked under greater difficulties—stones clattering on the roof, and crashing through the windows, and sometimes wild men screaming through the keyholes. I have come back to say a few things, and I mean to say them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Save you from your friends!"] I quite, agree, and when enormous issues are depending upon it, you require calm deliberation. I ask it for the rest of the journey. The journey is not at an end. It is full of perils, perils for this country, perils for all lands, perils for the people throughout the world. I beg, at any rate, that the men who are doing their best should be left in peace to do it, or that other men should be sent there.
Those are merely artificial difficulties. They are difficulties that are more trying to the temper than to the judgment. But there are intrinsic difficulties of an extraordinary character. You are dealing with a multitude of nations, most of them with a problem of its own, each and every one of them with a different point of view, even where the problems are common, looking from a different angle at questions—sometimes, perhaps, with different interests; and it requires all the tact, all the patience, and all the skill that we can command to prevent different interests from developing into conflicting interests. I want the House and the country to bear that in mind. I believe that we have surmounted those difficulties, but it has not been easy. There were questions one never heard of which have almost imperilled the peace of Europe while we were sitting there.
1.0 P.M.
I should like to put each Member of this House under an examination. I am certain that I could not have passed it before I went to the Peace Conference. How many Members have heard of Teschen? I do not mind saying that I had never heard of it, but Teschen very nearly produced an angry conflict between two Allied States, and we had to interrupt the proceedings to try and settle the affairs at Teschen. There are many questions of that kind where commissions have had to be sent, and where we have had to smooth difficulties, in order to enable us to get on with the bigger problems of the War. And those questions are important. They are questions of small States. It was the
quarrel for small States that made the great War. The difficulties of the Balkans—I believe they disturbed Europe, they created the atmosphere of unrest which began the trouble, they aroused the military temper, and I am not at all sure they did not excite the blood lust in Europe. One of the features of the present situation is that, owing to the break-up of great Empires, Central Europe is being broken into small States, and the greatest care must be taken that no cause of future unrest shall be created by the settlements which we make. I have given the House some of the difficulties with which we are confronted.

BREAK-UP OF THREE ANCIENT EMPIRES.

In addition to them we have had before us the complete break-up of three ancient empires—Russia, Turkey and Austria. I should like to say, before I come to the other work of the Conference, a few words about Russia. I have read, and I have heard of very simple remedies produced by both sides. Some say, "Use force!" Some say, "Make peace!" It is not easy; it is one of the most complex problems ever dealt with by any body of men. One difficulty is that there is no Russia. Siberia is broken off. There is the Don, one of the richest provinces of Russia, the Caucasus, and then there is some organisation controlling Central Russia; but there is no body that can say it is a de facto Government for the whole of Russia. Apart, then, from all questions of whether you could, under any circumstances, recognise the Bolshevik Government, you cannot recognise it as the de facto Government of Russia, because it is not, and there is no other Government you can call the de facto Government of Russia. You have that vast country in a state of complete chaos, confusion, and anarchy. There is no authority that extends over the whole. Boundaries advance and boundaries recede. One day a large territory is governed by one authority, and the next day by another. It is just like a volcano; it is still in fierce eruption, and the best you can do is to provide security for those who are dwelling on its remotest and most accessible slopes, and arrest the devastating flow of lava, so that it shall not scorch other lands.

BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT.

It is very easy to say about Russia, "Why do you not do something?" I
would like to ask each man consecutively what would he have done. To begin with, let me say at once, there is no question of recognition. It has never been discussed.—it was never put forward, and never discussed for the reasons I have given. I can give two or three more. There is no Government representing the whole of Russia. The Bolshevik Government has committed against Allied subjects great crimes which have made it impossible to recognise it, even if it were a civilised Government, and the third reason is that at this very moment they are attacking our friends in Russia. What is the alternative? Does anyone propose military intervention? I want to examine that carefully and candidly. I will not say before the House, but before any individual commits his conscience to such an enterprise, I want him to realise what it means. First of all there is the fundamental principle of all foreign policy in this country—a very sound principle—that you should never interfere in the internal affairs of another country, however badly governed; and whether Russia is Menshevik or Bolshevik, whether it is reactionary or revolutionary, whether it follows one set of men or another, that is a matter for the Russian people themselves. We cannot interfere, according to any canon of good government, to impose any form of government on another people, however bad we may consider their present form of government to be. The people of this country thoroughly disapprove of Tzarism—its principles, its corruption, and its oppression—but it was not our business to put it down. This is a question for Russia itself. We certainly disagree—I believe I may say every man in this House wholly disagrees fundamentally—with all the principles upon which the present Russian experiment is based. We deplore its horrible consequences—starvation, bloodshed, confusion, ruin, and horror. But that does not justify us in committing this country to a gigantic military enterprise in order to improve the conditions in Russia.

Let me speak in all solemnity, and with a great sense of responsibility. Russia is a country which it is very easy to invade, but very difficult to conquer. It has never been conquered by a foreign foe, although it has been successfully invaded many times. It is a country which it is easy to get into, but very difficult to get out of. You have only to look at what has happened in the last few years to the Germans.
They rolled up the Russian armies, they captured millions of Russian prisoners, they took Russian guns. The Russians had no ammunition, there was barely anyone to resist them, and at last the Russian Army fled, leaving their guns on the field. There was no Russian Army. Neither M. Kerensky nor any of his successors could get together 10,000 disciplined men, and yet the Germans, to the last moment, whilst their front was broken in France, while their country was menaced with invasion, while they themselves were being overwhelmed with disaster, had to keep a million of men in Russia; and why? Because they had entangled themselves in the morass, and could not get out of it. Let that be a warning. At that time the Bolshevik Army was comparatively feeble. May I put it in another way?

MILITARY INTERVENTION GREATEST ACT OF STUPIDITY.

If we conquered Russia—and we could conquer it—you would be surprised at the military advice which is given us as to the number of men who would be required, and I should like to know where they are to come from. But supposing you had them. Supposing you gathered together an overwhelming army, and you conquered Russia. What manner of government are you going to set up there? You must set up a government which the people want; otherwise it would be an outrage of all the principles for which we have fought in this War. Does anyone know for what government they would ask, and if it is a government we do not like, are we to reconquer Russia in order to get a government we do like?

Look at it in another way. We have an Army of Occupation. I know what it costs. You cannot immediately leave Russia until you have restored order. It will take a long time to restore order in Russia. It is not a highly organised community. Has anyone reckoned up what an Army of Occupation would cost in Russia? The Rhine is accessible; it is not so very far from Great Britain. But what about Russia, with its long lines of communication, with its deficient transport, and its inadequate resources.

I read how hon. Members in this House showed a natural anxiety to control the expenditure in this country on railways and canals. But my right hon. Friend (Sir Eric Geddes), with all his energy, could not in a quarter of a century spend as much money on railways and canals in
Britain as a single year of military enterprise in Russia would cost. I share the horror of all the Bolshevik teachings, but I would rather leave Russia Bolshevik until she sees her way out of it than see Britain bankrupt. And that is the surest road to Bolshevism in Britain. I only want to put—and I must put quite frankly to the House—I should not be doing my duty as head of the Government unless I stated quite frankly to the House my earnest conviction—that to attempt military intervention in Russia would be the greatest act of stupidity that any Government could possibly commit. But then I am asked if that be the case, why do you support Koltchak, Denikin, and Kharkow? I will tell the House with the same frankness as I put the other case. When the Brest-Litoff treaty was signed,. there were large territories and populations in Russia that had neither hand nor part in that shameful pact, and they revolted against the Government which signed it.

ALLIES' POLICY.

Let me say this. They raised armies at our instigation and largely, no doubt, at our expense. That was an absolutely sound military policy. For what happened? Had it not been for those organisations that we improvised, the Germans would have secured all the resources which would have enabled them to break the blockade. They would have got through to the grain of the Don, to the minerals of the Urals, and to the oils of the Caucasus. They could have supplied themselves with almost every commodity of which four or five years of rigid blockade had deprived them, and which was essential to their conducting the War. In fact, the Eastern Front was reconstructed—not on the Vistula. It was reconstructed at a point that hurled the German Armies to their own destruction, and, when they got there, deprived them of all the things they had set out to seek. What happened? Bolshevism threatened to impose, by force of arms, its domination on those populations that had revolted against it, and that were organised at our request. If we, as soon as they had served our purpose, and as soon as they had taken all the risks, had said, "Thank you; we are exceedingly obliged to you. You have served our purpose. We need you no longer. Now let the Bolshevists cut your throats," we should have been mean—we should have been thoroughly unworthy indeed of any great land. As long as they
stand there, with the evident support of the populations—because wherever the populations are not behind them every organised effort to resist Bolshevism has failed—in the Ukraine, where the population is either indifferent or, perhaps, friendly, we have there populations like those in Siberia, the Don, and elsewhere, who are opposed to Bolshevism—they are offering a real resistance. It is our business, since we asked them to take this step, since we promised support to them if they took this step, and since by taking this stand they contributed largely to the triumph of the Allies, it is our business to stand by our friends. Therefore, we are not sending troops, but we are supplying goods. Everyone who knows Russia knows that, if she is to be redeemed, she must be redeemed by her own sons. All that they ask is—seeing that the Bolsheviks secured the arsenals of Russia—that they should be supplied with the necessary arms to enable them to fight for their own protection and freedom in the land where the Bolshevists are anti-pathetic to the feeling of the population. Therefore I do not in the least regard it as a departure from the fundamental policy of Great Britain not to interfere in the internal affairs of any land that we should support General Denikin, Admiral Koltchak, and General Kharkoff.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Are you supplying them with food?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. They are not asking for it; they are asking for equipment, and we are supplying them. As far as food is concerned, they are very well off. The Don is a very rich country, and we have not heard that there is any suffering in those parts. What more are we doing? This is so important a part of the policy of the Allies that I am bound to take up some time in order to explain it. The next item in our policy is what I call to arrest the flow of the lava—that is, to prevent the forcible eruption of Bolshevism into Allied lands. For that reason, we are organising all the forces of the Allied countries bordering on Bolshevist territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea—Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Roumania. There is no doubt that the populations are anti-Bolshevist. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Paderewski the other day. He had just come from Poland, and he told me that the Polish population were bitterly anti-Bolshevist.
The Czecho-Slovakian statesmen—a very able body of men—told me exactly the same thing about Bohemia, and the same observation applies to Roumania. If Bolshevism attacks any of our Allies, it is our business to defend them.

A BARRIER AGAINST BOLSHEVISM.

For that reason, we are supplying all these countries with the necessary equipment to set up a real barrier against an invasion by force of arms. The Bolshevists may menace or they may not. Whether they do so or not, we should be ready for any attempt to overrun Europe by force. That is our policy. But we want peace in Russia. The world will not be pacified so long as Russia is torn and rent by civil war. We made one effort. I make no apology for that. That was an effort to make peace among the warring sections, not by recognising any Government, but by inducing them to come to together, with a view to setting up some authority in Russia which would be acceptable to the whole of the Russian people, and which the Allies could recognise as the Government of that great people. We insisted that it was necessary they should cease fighting before they started to negotiate. With one accord, I regret to say, they refused to assent to this essential condition, and, therefore, the effort was not crowned with success.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the Soviet Republic accede?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; they would not accede to the request that they should cease fighting. On the contrary, they suggested that we were doing it purely because our friends were getting the worst of it. That fact itself shows that the time has not yet arrived for securing the pacification of Russia by means of any outside pressure. I do not despair of a solution being found. There are factors in the situation even now which are promising. Reliable information which we have received indicates that while the Bolshevist forces are apparently growing in strength, Bolshevism itself is rapidly on the wane. It is breaking down before the relentless pressure of economic facts. This process must inevitably continue. You cannot carry on a great country upon rude and wild principles such as those which are inculcated by the Bolsheviks. When Bolshevism, as we know it and as Russia to her sorrow has known it, disappears, then the time will come for another effort at re-establishing peace in
Russia. But that time is not yet. We must have patience, and we must have faith. You are dealing with a nation which has been misgoverned for centuries, and been defeated and trampled to the ground, largely, let us admit, owing to the corruption, the inefficiency, and the treachery of its own governors. Its losses have been colossal. All that largely accounts for the real frenzy that seized upon a great people. That is why a nation which has gone through untold horrors has abandoned itself for the moment to fantastic and hysterical experiments. But there are unmistakable signs that Russia is emerging from the trouble. When that time comes, when she is once more sane, calm, and normal, we shall make peace in Russia. Until we can make peace in Russia, it is idle to say that the world is at peace.

Mr. CLYNES: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to his next point, may I ask him whether he can make any statement on the approaches or the representations alleged to have been made to his Government by persons acting on behalf of such Government as there is in Central Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: There were no approaches at all, except what has appeared in the papers.

Mr. CLYNES: I put the question because it has been alleged that you have had them.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, we have had no approaches at all. Of course, there are constantly men of all nationalities, coming from and going to Russia, always coming bask with their own tales from Russia. But we have had nothing authentic. We have had no approaches of any sort or kind. I have heard only of reports that others have got proposals which they assume have come from authentic quarters, but these have never been put before the Peace Conference by any member of that Conference. Therefore, we have not considered them. I think I know to what the right hon. Gentleman refers. There was a suggestion that there was some young American who had come back. All I can say about that is that it is not for me to judge the value of these communications. But if the President of the United States had attached any value to them, he would have brought them before the Conference, and he certainly did not do so.
I apologise for taking such a long time, but it is really a question of the first magnitude, and, if the House will believe me, it is a question of very great complexity. It is not so easy to decide one way or the other. It is one of those questions that, whichever way you decide it, you feel, probably, that you might be wrong, because it is so full of difficulty. On one thing I am clear. I entreat the House of Commons and the country not to contemplate the possibility of another great war. We have had quite enough bloodshed.

ALLIES' COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING.

I should now like to say something about the general question of the peace. After very prolonged discussions, not an hour of which was wasted, the representatives of the Great Powers have arrived at a complete understanding on the great fundamental questions that affect peace with Germany. We have formulated our demands, and I hope that by the end of next week they will be presented. I should like to say one or two words about the very unfortunate attempts which have been made to sow dissension, distrust and suspicion between the nations whose solidarity and good will towards each other is essential to the whole of civilisation. I cannot conceive at the present moment a worse crime than to attempt to sow strife, distrust and suspicion between those people whose good will, whose co-operation, whose common action, whose common sacrifice, have just saved the world from disaster. Those things can be done in our domestic politics, and no great harm ensues, even though it be due to false rumours and misrepresentations. You can do them with impunity, but to do them now, in the very greatest crisis of the world's history, when nothing can save the world but keeping the nations together, is an outrage. No discussions could ever have been more friendly. Never was a greater desire shown to understand each other's point of view and to make allowance for that point of view.

The idea that America and Europe have been at hopeless variance is untrue. No one could have treated more sympathetically the peculiar problem and the special suceptibilities of Europe, with long and bitter memories of national conflicts, than President Wilson. Nor have we during the whole of these Conferences ever forgotten the poignant fact that most of the sufferings and sacrifices of this
War were borne by the heroic land in whose capital the conditions of peace have been determined. We have not forgotten that France, within living memory, has been rent and torn by the same savage enemy. We have not forgotten that she is entitled not merely to security against a repetition of attack, but that she is entitled to a keener sense of security against it. Upon all the questions which have come before us we have come to conclusions which are unanimous.

PEACE TERMS—PUBLICATION.

What about publicity? We considered that question and we came to the unanimous conclusion that to publish those terms before they are discussed with the enemy would be a first-class blunder. I know there have been criticisms, and there has been rather silly talk about secrecy. No Peace Conference ever held has given so much publicity to its proceedings. I am not referring to unauthorised reports. I am referring to official communications. Honestly I would rather have a good Peace than a good Press.

May I give one or two reasons why we came to the conclusion not to publish the terms before they are discussed. No peace terms, no measure of any kind ever devised or promulgated—can satisfy everyone. I am not referring to mere political and personal attack, or to worked-up effects. I am thinking of honest criticisms inspired by higher and more sincere motives There are some people who will say, "You have gone too far." There will be others who will say, "You have not gone far enough." There will probably be people in each country who will suggest that the interests of their country have been sacrificed to those of some other country, and if all that can be published who will benefit by it? No one but the enemy. Supposing there were men in this country who thought our peace terms were too severe, there would be speeches and there would be leading articles. Those are the speeches and those are the articles that would be published in Germany, and there would be no proportion in what appeared in Germany. It would appear in Germany as if British public opinion were opposed to our terms, because we have gone too far. It would encourage resistance. Let me put the other side—the effect in
Germany. I want to make peace. Supposing the terms proposed by Bismarck to the French had been published in France before they had been discussed by Jules Favre, what would have happened? The Communists would have been strengthened by the adhesion of men who, for patriotic reasons and in a momentary impulse, without considering the best thing, looking over a period of twenty years or longer, would have supported even anarchy in preference to what they considered harsh terms. France could not have made peace. To publish the terms prematurely before they were discussed, before the enemy had a full opportunity of considering them, would be to raise difficulties in the way of peace, and we mean to take every action that is necessary to prevent publication.

But there are two or three things I can say about it. Before the War was over, we stated our peace terms. On behalf of the Government, I made a considered statement—which was considered by every member of the Cabinet and by the Trade Union Conference—of what we conceived to be the terms on which we could make peace with the enemy. That was last year. At that time those terms received the adhesion of every section of opinion in this country. There was no protest from any quarter. A few days afterwards President Wilson proposed his famous "Fourteen Points," which practically embodied the same proposals. I am referred to my speeches before the last election. There are some who suggest that at the last election I and my colleagues were rushed into declarations of which now we are rather ashamed, and wish to get out of. I do not wish to get out of them in the least. These declarations were adopted by, I think, every political leader of every section.

I took the trouble to find out what was said by Mr. Asquith with regard to indemnities and the punishment of the Kaiser. I find that Mr. Asquith, immediately afterwards, said he was in favour of exacting from the wrongdoer the uttermost farthing. Speaking at East Fife the day after my Bristol speech, someone asked him: "Would you make the Germans pay for the War?" Mr. Asquith replied: "Yes. I am in agreement on that matter with what the Prime Minister said yesterday." I am not putting that as criticism, but as an answer to the criticism that I committed myself very indiscreetly, under pressure from the electors,
to something from which other statesmen have abstained. On the contrary, I believe if my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) will look at the speeches of some of his associates—I rather think he had a walkover—he will find statements which are very much of the same kind as that. I do not like this sort of high-lined criticisms, which refer to electioneering speeches as though I was the only man who ever made electioneering speeches. There are others. So that those pledges were not the pledges merely of my colleagues and myself, but of every political leader. I tell the House at once that, if on reflection, and if after examination of the problem with the statesmen of other lands—who have not had to fight an election, and therefore could take a calmer and more detached view of these problems—if, after coming in contact with them, I had arrived at the conclusion that I had gone too far, and pledged the Government and the country to something that I could not carry out, I should have come down here and said so, because it would have been folly, even for an electioneering pledge, to imperil the people of Europe. Then the House of Commons, of course, would have been free to take its own action. But, so far from my coming here to ask for reconsideration—to ask release from any pledge or promise which I have given—I am here to say that all the outlines of peace that we have ever given to the public and asked them to make sacrifices to obtain—every pledge we have given with regard to what we pressed for insertion in the peace terms is incorporated in the demands which have been put forward by the Allies. I observe that some of these pledges are published. I am going to issue an invitation to some enterprising newspaper that when the peace terms, the peace demands put forward by the Allies, come to be published, there should be published in parallel columns the pledges and the promises made by the Government.

That is all I am going to say about the peace terms—all that I think it would be wise to say. It will be said that we have pressed for these at the last moment, because of the great agitation and of the various communications we have received. I have the greatest respect for all those communications. But, will my hon. Friends believe me, we put forward those terms from the very beginning. We never swerved one iota from them. I told the
House that when I came here some weeks ago. We stand by them, because we think they are just.

PEACE JUST—NOT VINDICTIVE.

We want peace. We want a peace which will be just, but not vindictive. We want a stern peace, because the occasion demands it. The crime demands it. But its severity must be designed, not to gratify vengeance, but to vindicate justice. Every clause and term in those conditions must be justified on that ground. Above all, we want to protect the future against a repetition of the horrors of this War, by making the wrongdoer repair the wrong and the loss which he has inflicted by his wanton aggression, by punishing any individual who is responsible, by depriving the nations that have menaced the peace of Europe for half a century with a flourishing sword—by depriving them of their weapon—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Kaiser?"]—I stand by all my pledges—by avoiding conditions which would create a legitimate sense of wrong, which would excite national pride needlessly to seek opportunities for redress, and by giving the most permanent security to the nations of the earth to federate for a firm purpose of maintaining right.

I want to say one other thing, because I am going back, if the House wants me to—unless it prefers some other choice. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] There are many "eligible offers." But whoever goes there is going to meet the emissaries of the enemy, the enemy with whom we have been confronted for five years, and who has inflicted terrible wounds upon humanity. Whoever goes there must go knowing that he has the fullest confidence of Parliament behind him. I know that Parliament can repudiate the treaty when it is signed. I do not want to contemplate that. It would be difficult to do when once the British signatures are attached, but Parliament can do it. So, before anyone goes there, Parliament must feel that, at any rate, it knows that whoever is there will carry out his pledges to the utmost of his power and his gifts. You cannot always clear up misconceptions. When you see misstatements you cannot instantly write, and say that they are not true, that they are inaccurate. You cannot always be leaving the Conference to come home to clear up this or that. You cannot conduct negotiations under those conditions.

INFORMATION FROM A "RELIABLE SOURCE."

I did not object to that telegram the other day, but let me say one word to my hon. Friend (Mr. Kennedy Jones). I object to the information on which it was based. I saw the telegram, and you must remember that these things, when they are sent abroad, become international questions. France sees it, America, Italy, and Germany. I am told that it was sent because of information which came from "a reliable source."

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: It was sent from the information put forward in an interview in the "Westminster Gazette," which was said to have been supplied by a high and distinguished authority.

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, really, I wish my hon. Friend had explained that to the 370 Members.

Mr. K. JONES: I did explain it.

The PRIME MINISTER: It was an article, anonymous I think, in the "Westminster Gazette." I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but before he gave that answer he ought to have compared notes with my hon. Friend opposite (Lieutenant-Colonel Claude Lowther).

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: May I say that the telegram was sent with only one object, and that was to strengthen the hands of the representatives Great Britain at the Peace Conference.

The PRIME MINISTER: I never doubted the bona fides of those who sent the telegram—not for a moment. I am only complaining of the "reliable source." My hon. Friend has given the "reliable source." He said it was a telegram from Paris, received by my hon. Friend, not the "Westminster Gazette." Really they ought to have compared notes? I blame their solicitor.

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Did it do any harm?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all!

HON. MEMBERS: Did it do any good?

The PRIME MINISTER: It may do some good, before I have done with it. Will my hon. Friend do me the credit of believing that even Ministers have sources of information? I know the "reliable source," and I will tell the House something about it. There were peace terms
published in November as a model for us to proceed upon. In those peace terms there was not a word about indemnities, not a word about the cost of the War. Reparation—yes, in the strictest and narrowest sense of the term, but no reparation for lost lives, no reparation for damaged houses, not even at Broad-stairs. That was in November. We were not at that time to try anybody responsible for the War. We were to try those who had been guilty of offences against the law, but the tribunals must be German. That is the "reliable source "! Now we must have everything—the cost of the War, damage to all sorts of property—hanging everybody all round, especially members of the Government! In December there were hundreds of thousands of newspapers circulated freely, at somebody's expense, among the soldiers in France, asking them to return candidates. If those candidates had been returned, the two peace delegates in Paris now would certainly not have been the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Balfour) and myself, but perhaps Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Philip Snowden. Who issued that appeal? The "reliable source."

Mr. K. JONES: No, Sir.

2.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: I happen to know, and the hon. Gentleman is the last man who would have treated that as a "reliable source," because he knows something about it. At the beginning of the Conference there were appeals to everybody all round to support President Wilson and his great ideals. Where did these come from? From the same "reliable source" that is now hysterically attacking all those great ideals. Just a few weeks ago there was a cartoon in one of these papers representing Bolshevism as a mere bogey, and I as a person trying to frighten the working classes with that mere bogey. Now it is no longer a bogey; it is a monster, and I am doing my best to dress it up as an angel. That is the same "reliable source." Reliable! That is the last adjective I would use. It is here to-day, jumping there to-morrow, and there the next day. I would as soon rely on a grasshopper.
Still, I am prepared to make some allowance—even great newspapers will forgive me for saying so—and when a man is labouring under a keen sense of disappointment, however unjustified and
however ridiculous the expectations may have been, he is always apt to think the world is badly run. When a man has deluded himself, and all the people whom he ever permits to go near to him help him into the belief that he is the only man who can win the War, and he is waiting for the clamour of the multitude that is going to demand his presence there to direct the destinies of the world, and there is not a whisper, not a sound, it is rather disappointing; it is unnerving; it is upsetting.
Then the War is won without him. There must be something wrong. Of course it must be the Government! Then, at any rate, he is the only man to make peace. The only people who get near him tell him so, constantly tell him so. So he publishes the Peace Terms, and he waits for the "call." It does not come. He retreats to sunny climes, waiting, but not a sound reaches that far-distant shore to call him back to his great task of saving the world. What can you expect? He comes back, and he says, "Well, I cannot see the disaster, but I am sure it is there. It is bound to come." Under these conditions I am prepared to make allowances; but let me say this, that when that kind of diseased vanity is carried to the point of sowing dissension between great Allies, whose unity is essential to the peace and happiness of the world, and when an attempt is made to make France distrust Britain, to make France hate America, and America to dislike France, and Italy to quarrel with everybody, then I say that not even that kind of disease is a justification for so black a crime against humanity.
I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I am bound to do it; and I must tell the House why. I have been in France for weeks. Here nobody takes notice of this thing—everybody knows it. But it is not the case in France. They still believe in France that the "Times" is a serious organ. They do not know that it is merely a threepenny edition of the "Daily Mail." On the Continent of Europe they really have an idea that it is a semi-official organ of the Government. That shows how long these traditions take to die out. I want them to know what all this means. I am doing this in the interests of good will. That is my only apology for taking notice of that kind of trash, with which some of these papers have been filled during the last few weeks.

A GOOD PEACE.

I now come back to the general question, and I apologise for taking up so much time on the other matter. There is a general feeling that people want peace. I have talked to business men; I have talked to many soldiers awaiting demobilisation; and the general word, if I can just express it shortly, is, "Hurry up; we want peace." Another request which I have heard from French soldiers whom I met in the devastated areas was, "Give us a good peace." That is the thing that the people of this country are out for. Revenge—they do not understand it; they are out for justice. The world wants to get back quickly to work, and it wants to get to work under better conditions than it had before the War. From all countries, without exception—and I have now seen men of many lands—I heard the echo of that resolve on the part of the worker, fixed deep in their hearts everywhere, and I am proud that Britain has been the first to take action on that line. I should like to say something of the profound impression which is created in every country by the quiet way in which Britain is setting her house in order—by conference, by conciliation, by legislation, and not by warring anarchy and force—and they all say,. "Is not this characteristic of British tradition?" It is having its effect right through the world. There was a great labour orator, I think the greatest on the Continent of Europe, who spoke on Friday at the Labour Con-Conference. He was detailing all the labour conditions that had stirred the working men everywhere, and he said, "There are two methods of dealing with the situation. One is the Russian method, and the other is the English method." I felt a thrill of pride for my country when I heard that. It is essential that the ordinary machinery of commerce and industry should be set going. You cannot do without them. There are men in every trade with their hands on the lever waiting for the announcement. It is essential that the enormous expenditure of war should be cut down ruthlessly, and as soon as possible. That is why peace is necessary, otherwise the fruits of industry will be squandered.

One of the most beneficent results of peace, in my judgment, will be that the great continental menace of armaments will be swept away. The country that has kept Europe armed for forty years is to be reduced to an army which is just
adequate to police her cities and her villages, and with her fleet, which was a sort of terror to us—a hidden terror—she will now have just enough to protect her commerce, and no more. We must profit by that. Europe must profit by it, and not Germany alone. I know there is a good deal of talk about the recrudescence of the military power of Germany, and you get paragraphs about what Germany is going to do—she is going to release her fleet, and She is going to have great armies. That is not the danger. The fact is that, with difficulty, can she gather together 80,000 armed men to preserve order. Her guns have been taken away from her—her weapons of offence on the sea, on the land, and in the air.

WORLD GOING TO PIECES.

That is not the danger. The world is going to pieces. A very keen observer who has just come from Central Europe said to me, "I have seen a world going to pieces—men helpless, half-starved, benumbed; no fight in them, no revolution, because the men have no heart." Two British soldiers crossing a square in Vienna saw a hungry child. They took out a biscuit, and cast it to the child. You have seen when you throw a bit of bread on the ground how birds flock from every part, birds that you have never seen before. Well, hundreds of children came from nowhere; they clawed for that food, and it was with difficulty that these two British soldiers escaped with their lives!

Commander KENWORTHY: The blockade?

The PRIME MINISTER: That which I have described is the real danger. The gaunt spectre of hunger is stalking throughout the land. The Central Powers and Russia have overtaxed their strength in the conflict. They are lying prostrate, broken, and all these movements of Spartacists, and Bolsheviks, and revolutionaries in each of these countries are more like the convulsions of a broken-backed creature, crushed in a savage conflict. It is in these conditions, and with this material, that we are making peace. Nations with military ambitions have received a cruel lesson, nay, Europe itself has suffered more in the last five years than ever in the whole of its past history. The lesson has been a sharper one than ever. It has been administered to vaster multitudes of human beings than ever. The
people have a more intelligent appreciation of what it means than ever. For that reason the opportunity of organising the world on the basis of peace is such a one as has never been presented to the world before, and in this fateful hour it is the supreme duty of statesmen in every land—of the Parliaments upon whose will statesmen depend, of those who guide and direct the public opinion which is the making of all—not to soil this triumph of right by indulging in the angry passions of the moment, but to consecrate the sacrifices of millions to the permanent redemption of the human race from the scourge and agony of war.

Mr. ADAMSON: My first sentence in what I desire to contribute to this Debate is one of congratulation to the Prime Minister on the good form in which he is to-day. The House, and the country, have been looking forward with intense interest to the statement from the Prime Minister, to which we have just listened, and I am certain that I will carry general assent when I say that we have not been disappointed. The keen desire for information, as to the happening behind the closed doors at the Peace Conference in Paris, was a very natural one. The vast and complex issues which were being weighed there, so full of possibilities for the future peace and happiness of a war-weary world, were bound in the very nature of things, in the absence of detailed information, to strain the patience of all sections of our people, and were bound to raise all sorts of rumours and misgiving as to whether the proper steps were being taken to safeguard the interests of this country and lift the world out of the wreck and ruin inseparable from the great struggle in which we were engaged for nearly four and a half years. These doubts and misgivings were increased as time went on and no inside information was being given to the public of this country, and they found expression inside and outside the House, and prominence was given to the particular aspect of the great problem of most interest to this country by the source from which these doubts and misgivings emanated.
As the Prime Minister has already stated, in certain newspapers his pledges were being printed on front pages, evidently with the view of bringing pressure to bear on him to stand up to his pre-election pledges so far as peace terms were concerned. Questions were being raised and even telegrams drafted and sent from
Members of this House with the same object in view. Paragraphs were appearing in certain newspapers warning the public that the eagerly-awaited speech must not take the form of another dose of soothing syrup. These doubts and misgivings were coming principally from the friends of the Prime Minister himself, and as the day drew near for his speech to be delivered we were getting accustomed to headlines, somewhat in the following terms: "The Political Bloc." "We are going to have a General Election this year," "A Bid for Labour," "The Prime Minister likely to form a new Centre Party." We have heard at last the long-expected speech, and while it has been of a very eloquent, interesting, and instructive character I am not at all sure if it will satisfy entirely all the Prime Minister's friends. As must be expected at this stage in the important negotiations which the Peace Conference has in hand, the information which he has given us has been of a general character, and there has been a complete absence of the details that I fear were expected by many of those who were giving expression to these doubts and misgivings. I am personally aware that it would have been a great mistake on the part of the Prime Minister if he had dealt with these negotiations in detail in a manner which would satisfy all those who were questioning the line that he was taking in Paris. At the same time there are certain aspects of the proceedings at the Peace Conference as to which I would have liked the Prime Minister to be in a position to give us more details.
I have already referred to the publication of the Prime Minister's pledges in the front pages of certain newspapers. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, has been dealing very effectively with that matter, but in dealing with it and in explaining as far as he possibly could the position that he has taken up at the Peace Conference, he carefully avoided telling us whether it is his pre-election speeches to the British people or his pledges on behalf of the British people, that were given fully a year ago, and again in November, to which effect is being given in the peace terms, these pledges being in complete agreement with the terms laid down by President Wilson. Again, dealing with the terms that have been agreed to by the Allies so far as Germany is concerned, the Prime Minis-
ter has not told us whether the indemnities that are to be exacted from Germany were based on the pledges given to the British people or the pledges given on behalf of the British people. As he well knows, there is a considerable difference in the amount that would have to be paid by Germany under the one set of conditions as compared with the other. He has also very carefully refrained from telling us whether the peace conditions agreed upon, that are to be presented to Germany now very soon, will be irreducible terms, or again if they would be presented to this House for consideration before they are ratified.
The Prime Minister has dealt at considerable length also with the question of the League of Nations, and I am certain that those who are associated with me on those benches were delighted to hear the sympathetic way in which he dealt with this phase of the question. From newspaper paragraphs that have been appearing from time to time we were led to believe that some sort of struggle was going on in Paris between the policy of a League of Nations and the old ideas of foreign policy. I am quite pleased to have the assurance of the Prime Minister that such has not been the case, and that steps have been taken that will result in a League of Nations being established at an early date. Another point I want to question the Prime Minister upon with regard to the League of Nations is whether this is to be a real League of Nations that will embrace all the countries of the world, or whether it is to be a League of Allied Nations? I am perfectly aware that, before the enemy countries can be taken in they will require to give some guarantees as to carrying out the terms which the Allies are seeking to impose upon them, and that they will have to establish some stable form of government before they can be fully recognised; but, as soon as ever they have given proper guarantees as to fulfilling their obligations, and establish a stable form of government, then, I think, it would be a grievous mistake if the enemy countries were to be kept outside the League of Nations. As a matter of fact, we would be failing in our attempt to establish a real League of Nations.
We were also very much indebted to the Prime Minister for the very exhaustive explanations he gave us regarding the position in Russia. The only point to which I want to draw his attention in that
connection is the fact that there is in the minds of nine-tenths of the people of this country an intense dislike to any of our soldiers remaining in Russia, and to suggest to him that he and his colleagues in the Government would be well-advised to take steps for bringing back our men from Russia at the earliest possible moment. In putting that aspect of the case before the right hon. Gentleman, I do not suggest that our men who are there, and may be in danger, are to be deserted. They may have to be relieved by the help of other men being provided, but, once that object has been accomplished, then the Prime Minister will remove one of the dangers of serious trouble in this country if he immediately withdraws both the rescuers and the rescued. If our men are to remain in Russia, as he pointed out, until order is established in that country, then there is room for serious trouble arising in this country regarding that matter. I think he will be well-advised to follow out the maxim, which he himself laid down in the course of the eloquent address to which the House has just listened, namely, that the settlement of permanent conditions that are to obtain in Russia ought to be left to the sons of Russia alone.
I want frankly to state that the Prime Minister, in the course of his address, has dealt very fully with most of the points that I had marked out. Consequently, my speech has been considerably shortened, for which I am not one little bit sorry. Another of the points, however, to which I wish to draw his attention, is one to which he also referred, namely, that the Labour Charter, which has been under consideration and has received, I understand the personal supervision of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. G. Barnes), is to be incorporated as part and parcel of the machinery of the League of Nations. If that is done, I think we shall be removing many of the difficulties that we are from time to time discussing on the floor of this House. Even during the Prime Minister's absence we have been discussing various aspects of tariffs, Free Trade and things of that character, which, to my mind, would be very much affected if part and parcel of the machinery of a League of Nations contained the Labour Charter, on which my right hon. Friend
the Member for Gorbals Division has been working so zealously during the last few months.
The last point I want to bring under notice is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that they were justified in taking some time. I entirely agree with him. We expect, and we hope, that a good job will be made by the Peace Conference of the vast, complex and intricate problems that have been under their consideration. At the same time, I want him to recognise that in the present condition of the world, time is the very essence of success. Unless you can get the world back to work quickly, then I fear in more parts than in Central Europe you will endanger the stability of government. Unless you can get the world back quickly to work there is a great danger of universal disaster, and, while I do not want to see slipshod work done by the members of the Peace Conference, I would strongly urge upon the Prime Minister the great necessity for making haste, with a view of saving the world from a worse fate than has yet befallen it. I hope that when the proceedings of the Peace Conference have been concluded, there will be a brighter future in prospect for the whole world; that those ideas, for which at least nine-tenths of our manhood took up arms and entered into this great struggle, will be given effect to; that small nationalities will be much securer in the future than they have been in the past; that the principle of self-determination will be extended to them to a far greater degree than ever has been the case up till now; and that inside the various countries of the world, democracy will have better conditions, and a greater share of the wealth they are producing, and so ensure happiness and harmony to a greater extent in the future than ever we have experienced in the past.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The Prime Minister, in his speech, dealt very fully with the points that were raised on the Adjournment which I moved last Wednesday, and I should like to say just two things with regard to his statement. First of all, I am perfectly certain that his repudiation of the idea of any recognition of Bolshevism will give gratification among the law-respecting people in the whole of the civilised countries; and, secondly, his definite statement that there was going to be no attempt to abandon the loyal elements in Russia who have helped to fight,
will also be welcomed, and will give considerable gladness to our Allies in that great country. I am not quite certain on one point, and probably a member of the Government who will speak at the end of the discussion may touch upon it. He said that it was the policy of the Government to supply munitions to the loyal Russians in different parts. I did interject a question as to food, and he said that he was under the impression that they were sufficiently supplied with food. As I understand, the position has been represented by distinguished and leading Russians who are likely to know the facts. I understand that the whole question of the recovery of Petrograd by a loyal Russian force is entirely dependent at the moment upon an undertaking by the Allies that food will be available as soon as the military operation of retaking Petrograd had been completed. There have been very careful inquiries. I think there is no doubt in military quarters that the force of volunteers there is sufficient for the purpose if the population can be fed immediately afterwards. It does seem to me that, in combination with the policy which the Prime Minister said had been determined upon with regard to Russia, does promise to do more to deal effectively with the Bolshevik sore, by recapturing the capital of Petrograd, than anything else, and I am perfectly certain, on the whole, there will be considerable gladness amongst the loyal elements in Russia by the general declaration of the Prime Minister with regard to Russia to-day.

Lord ROBERT CEOIL: I should like to be allowed to make a few observations on the general subject which has been raised on this Debate, and, before doing so, I should be glad if the House would allow me to explain exactly what is my own personal position in the matter. I have been in Paris during the last three months practically continuously. I went there at the request of the Government, after I had left the Government, to be their mandatory—to use a word which has become fashionable in another connection—in connection with the question of the League of Nations; and while I was there, after I had been dealing with it for some time, the Prime Minister was good enough to ask me also to deal with the economic questions which were arising upon a body which was called into existence, and named the Supreme Economic Council. I wanted just to make that short explana-
tion, because I wish it to be quite clear that in the observations I am about to make I am not speaking in any sense as a member of the Government. The Government are in no way responsible for anything that I shall say, and though I have no reason particularly to think they will disagree with it, it is only right that that should be made clear. I speak as a Member of Parliament, having had some opportunities for studying certain aspects of international affairs, and only in that capacity. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party made some observations just now about the League of Nations. He asked one or two questions, and I shall be glad to reply, as far as I can, and to give such information as lies in my power with respect to those questions. The House will recollect that as soon as the League of Nations Commission had concluded its first labours, it published to the world the draft of the Covenant upon which it was proposed to agree for the constitution of the League. The object of that publication was to secure that the world at large, and those who were interested in the subject might have an opportunity of considering the proposals in detail, and of making such criticisms as they thought right upon them. The result has been on the whole, I think, fully to justify the course which we then thought it right to take. The criticisms have been quite numerous, but they have been on the whole very encouraging.
In the first place, there has been no criticism of the general structure or principles of the League. The general idea that you should have a permanent organisation, that you should have, in addition to that, the assemblage from time to time of a larger assembly representing ail the members of the League and a smaller assembly which should deal with the current business of the League, and the general principles on which we proposed to try and safeguard the peace of the world—all these have been generally accepted, and no criticism, so far as I know, has been made on the general principles underlying them. More than that, I think we may claim that the friendly criticisms have, on the whole, as the proposals of the Commission have been studied, become more friendly, and that the unfriendly ones have become less unfriendly. I should like in that connection to answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman as to the Labour Conven-
tion. He asked whether under the proposals for the League it was quite clear that the Labour Convention was to be part and parcel—I am not quite sure whether those were the exact terms—of the organisation of the League. The Labour Convention, as the right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, provides that those who sign the Convention shall be members of the League of Nations, and that the members of the League of Nations shall be the signatories of the Labour Convention. And the Covenant of the League provides in express terms that the members of the League accept the Convention for the improvement of the conditions of labour and the necessary organisation for the purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was quite clear that the League of Nations was really to be a League of Nations, not merely a league of Allies, and on that point also I think I am in a position to reassure him. I had the honour of presiding at two conferences representing the neutral Powers. There were thirteen Powers represented, and the conferences were of a most friendly description. Certain criticisms were put forward, and certain suggestions for amendments were made. Those were very carefully considered by the League of Nations Commission, and a good many changes have been suggested for adoption by the Conference in consequence of those suggestions. Throughout the two meetings nothing could have been more friendly or more well disposed than the representatives of all the neutral Powers, and since they have taken place we have received from one Power—Spain—a definite statement that she is prepared to join the League as soon as she is permitted to do so. The Covenant will, I hope, contain a provision by which all those friendly neutrals, if I may put it in that way—all those neutrals who from their presence at those meetings have shown a friendly spirit towards the League—will be invited to join the League immediately after the signature of the Covenant, and I have no doubt myself whatever that the great majority, if not the whole—I hope the whole—of those neutral nations will become members of the League in the course of a very short time. I confess I attach great importance to that, and very much for the reasons put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. For us belligerent nations who have been en-
gaged in the storm and stress of war, it is natural and inevitable, and it is perfectly legitimate, that we should look at all the various questions which arise from a belligerent point of view, and that we should tend to judge the League as it would have operated had it been in existence during the late War. That is perfectly legitimate and perfectly right, but it is not the complete view, and cannot be a complete view of the operations of this great organisation if it is really to be a successful instrument of the world peace. We do not want to secure justice or even to secure safety for those who have been engaged in this War. We wish to provide means of a general pacification of the world, and to secure co-operation between all the nations of the world.
It is quite clear that if the League is to be a success, if we are really to hope for a new era in international affairs, we must have a just and durable settlement of the present War, and that involves—and this is really the main topic on which I wish to make these observations—not merely an adequate dealing with the territorial questions which have arisen. They have necessarily occupied a great deal of public attention, and quite rightly. They are of enormous importance, undoubtedly, for the future of the world, but, important as they are, I do not know that they are more important, or certainly not more urgently important, than the economic questions which at present face us throughout the whole of Europe. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the urgency of the economic position of Europe at the present time. I must really confess, having had some opportunity of hearing the facts on the point, that I could not say otherwise than that I regard the position as one calculated to create great anxiety, if not alarm. The causes are obvious. We have had, on a scale which has never before been equalled in the history of the world, slaughter and destruction throughout all countries in Europe. It is not only, though that has been terrible enough, the actual loss of life and health which has resulted to some of the most vigorous populations in Europe, but there has also to be considered the tremendous psychological effect of the War. We see it in every country. It is not only in those countries that have been most ravaged, but in every country we see an attitude of mind which makes it very difficult to settle down to
sober and unexciting exertion. We have seen some of it, perhaps, even in this country. I have certainly seen something of it in other countries, and everyone who comes back from the Central European countries gives you the same account. They say that there you have this situation—vast masses of the population in the greatest want, a considerable amount of work to be done, and yet no power apparently being able to induce the people who can work and whose work is wanted to set to work. No doubt there are physical reasons as well, but I am satisfied that one of the main reasons is what we have called in the War "war strain," and the condition of uncertainty and suspense which must exist until peace has been finally made. Then, of course, in addition to that, there has been the vast destruction of actual material, not only by the direct operations of war, but by the indirect operations in the wholesale dislocation of industry. There has been the failure properly to till the land, and there has been the destruction of rolling stock. All these things and many, many others are producing the same result, namely, the complete arrest, or the very nearly complete arrest, of all industrial and social life in those countries.
The Prime Minister referred in one of his most eloquent passages this afternoon to the want of food, and that is no doubt one of the chief effects of the state of things which I have been trying to describe. I saw a lady who has recently come back from Czecho-Slovakia. She told me that, according to the information given to her, out of a population of about 12,000,000, 5,000,000 were seriously underfed, and many of the districts in the more mountainous and poorer parts of the country were in the greatest want and the greatest distress. I have heard before the story which the Prime Minister told of the biscuit in the Vienna streets, and I have heard also that another distinguished statesman going through Vienna in his train naturally stopped there for some time and heard round his carriage all the children crying for food. I saw another man who had recently been through Bavaria. He told me that there was the greatest possible distress in the northern parts of Bavaria. He said that the women and children in that part of the world were undoubtedly approaching starvation, and in his judgment almost all the children were tuberculous as a consequence.
3.0 P.M.
I do not desire to "pile up the agony" in any way, but I have heard the most terrible descriptions of refugees from the eastern parts of Poland going back to Warsaw practically starving, and almost destitute of sufficient clothing to stand the very rigorous climate. These are terrible things, and they are not over yet. As a consequence you have unemployment, idleness—call it what you will—on an enormous scale. I saw a calculation that in. Budapest something like half the able-bodied men are doing nothing, and the proportion is not much different in many of the cities in Central and Eastern Europe. The reason is simply not only the want of food and the psychological effects of the War—though these contribute very largely to the same result—but in addition to that there is the complete dislocation of industry. I would like to give some instances descriptive of what is happening in the textile industry of Poland. There you have round the town of Lodz a large textile industry. The old course of trade was that the raw materials were manufactured in those mills and sold either in Poland itself or in Russia, and if sold in Russia, Russia exported corn in exchange for the cotton which was imported into Russia. Of course, all that has absolutely come to an end, and the only way in which you could set that industry going would be in some way to supply cotton to Poland. But Poland has no means at present whatever of paying for the cotton; she has no exports of any kind, and the only way it could be done is by supplying the cotton on credit, either by lending the money to Poland for the purchase of the cotton—and that is, in effect, what would have to be done—or by providing it in some other way. I take that as one instance, and the same thing is true of every district in every country in Europe, and to some extent even in this country.
Everywhere you have this kind of paralysis of exchange. You have it in the Allied countries, more or less, and you have it, of course, completely in Russia, and right through the Eastern and Central countries until you come to the Allied countries and to this country. It is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of the crisis, and it is impossible to exaggerate the urgent need for dealing with it, and the only way in which it can be dealt with is to provide in some way or another the credit which can set the whole
thing going again. The machine has stopped, and you have got to set it going somehow. It is to my mind a most urgent and serious condition of affairs. The difficulties are, of course, increased by the political question. For instance, in the new countries, in what used to be Austria-Hungary, there are political divisions now which prevent those countries exchanging goods with one another. You find, taking whatever it may be, goods from Poland not being sent into Austria, where they are urgently needed, or into Bohemia, where they are urgently needed in exchange for coal, because there is a dispute between the countries as to the possession of the coaling district. So it goes on, and those difficulties are, I am afraid, inevitable, and add very considerably to the urgency of the situation. You have also—and this is a very important matter—the almost complete breakdown of transportation in the whole of those countries. You will find some countries—I could name them—in which coal urgently needed in the interior is brought to the ports, but cannot be properly distributed because the transportation system of the country has so entirely broken down. That is due to two causes. It is partly due to the wearing out of the railway rolling stock which has not been replaced. In one country, out of 900 locomotives, only 200 are in working order, and the proportion is not very different in many other countries in that part of the world.
In addition to that, there is a great want of coal. Many of the coalfields of Europe itself, for one reason or another, are out of action. There is the district, to which the Prime Minister referred, of Teschen, which contains some of the best coal in that part of the world, and which, unfortunately, has become the subject of a political dispute between the two neighbouring nations, and I understand that coal production there has almost entirely ceased. So, to a large extent, the coal production of the great German coalfields, without having entirely ceased, has enormously gone down, partly owing to lack of food, partly owing to the psychological effects of the War, and partly owing to political disturbances. If I were to say what is most needed, and what would be most desirable if one had a magic gift to supply what was wanted in those countries I would ask first, I think, to be allowed to
supply coal. I have been very much struck by the very serious crisis—and this shows, how delicate these things are—that was created very largely by the unrest in the coal trade here, and which dislocated for the time being the coal commerce of the world. These things spread to unexpected results from causes which no one would think would have those consequences. I want, if I may, to try and impress on the House that it is owing to the great energy and generosity of America, assisted as far as possible by ourselves, that very considerable quantities of food have been sent in to those countries. It is a commentary on the state of things that Vienna, about which the Prime Minister told the story, perfectly true as I know, is a town to which we are sending food at this present moment and have been for some weeks past. Yet even so, it is so insufficient as to produce the result which he described.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: When was it sent?

Lord R. CECIL: I could not tell when the first consignment was sent, as to go into those matters would make my statement rather too detailed, but it has been going on, I think, for several months. Food by itself, however, is only a palliative. It deals with symptoms; it does not deal with the disease. If we had unlimited supplies and ships—and it is the ships that are really the controlling factor as to the amount of food which can be sent to these countries—we should still be dealing only with the effects of the disease, and not with the disease itself. It is no use feeding these people unless you can set them to work. That is essential. You have to set the machine of industry and commerce going. That is the great task which lies before us if we are to save Europe from the greatest disaster which has ever overtaken it.
I am not going to attempt to describe to the House in any completeness what is the remedy. But I say personally, and most important of all, we want peace! I was delighted to hear what the Prime Minister said this afternoon as to the prospect of a very early peace. It is impossible to exaggerate its importance. People will not set to work again till they see something like a normal and stable condition of affairs restored to their country. I am not going to discuss it, because I have not the knowledge, but we want the question of indemnities settled. At the
present time it is producing a most unhappy effect, economically, over the whole of Europe. It is not only that the Germans do not know what they will have to pay. It is not only that neutrals hesitate to trade with the Germans. That is the economic aspect. But that is not the only thing. Countries which are to receive the indemnities are themselves waiting to see how much they are going to get, and until they know how much they are going to get they are not prepared fully to take the necessary economic measures to meet the crisis in which they are engaged. I am quite sure it is of the greatest possible importance to get that question settled and out of the way as soon as possible. In the course of the speech of my right hon. Friend he was interrupted by an hon. Member who mentioned the blockade. I quite agree with the hon. Member. It is essential to get rid of the blockade completely, and at the earliest possible moment. I hope the House will not take it that the blockade exists to any great extent at this moment. Except in respect to Germany and Hungary, there is no blockade at all. In respect to Hungary, but for sudden disturbances it would have been, I think, removed from the blockade. Those who control these things thought rightly that till you were assured that there was going to be a stable govern-men in Hungary it was no use removing the blockade from that country.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the difference between the embargo on exports to neutral countries and to blockaded countries?

Lord R. CECIL: I can only say there is no question of blockade. It is not a question of embargoes. But until you have decided to remove the blockade from Germany completely you must maintain, if you wish to keep the blockade complete, a certain control over the trade of the neutrals. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had had the unfortunate experience I have had in dealing with these blockade questions he would have known that the most difficult and the most harassing part the only real difficult and harassing part of the blockade—was the question of food and other commodities going through neutral countries into Germany. It is precisely in order—it is necessary on military grounds, to maintain the blockade of Germany. It is almost impossible to relax control of the trade in the neutral countries adjoining. That is the difficulty. No one feels more strongly than I do—

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Noble Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not interrupt. He will have an opportunity later should he wish.

Lord R. CECIL: No one feels more strongly than I do the necessity for abolishing all these restrictions, from an economic point of view, as soon as we are assured that can be done safely. I trust it will be done. I should like to point this out: Supposing you make all the Channel as free as possible, you will not do everything; you will not do very much. You may make it possible to trade. But you would not only have to put your machinery into something like good order, you would have to supply the motive power to set it going. In my judgment there will have to be made a very great effort on the part of all the nations of the world—certainly of the nations of Europe—to estabish industrial conditions in these countries.
I have often wished I were an eloquent man, but never more than on the present occasion. I cannot conceive anything which would be more worth while to apply eloquence to than to convince the people of this country and, as far as one's voice can extend, to the people of the world, of the urgency and vital importance of this question. We all believe we are on the threshhold of a new era. It is so. There is no doubt some great changes are going to happen. What is that era to be? Is it to be gradual and gradually increasing chaos in these countries, until they have engulfed the whole fabric of Christian civilisation? Or by a supreme effort are we going to, start on the road of international confidence and co-operation? That is really the issue before us. If I may venture to do so, I would appeal to all in this country alike—to the workman as much as to the employer, to the rich as much as to the poor—to make a great effort—as great an effort it may well turn out as any we made during the War. But I am bound to say that great as the effort may be, by ourselves we cannot succeed. All the countries in Europe are exhausted by this long War. Our own energies are diminished. Our own resources are very much restricted. If Europe is to be saved it will be saved by the united efforts of all those countries which were associated in the War. It is useless to suppose that in this world you can accomplish anything worth having except by sacrifice. In no
other way does one really do anything worth doing. I venture to appeal, not only to my own countrymen, but to all the Anglo-Saxon race throughout the world. I do not base my appeal merely on the ground of self-interest—though that is strong enough. If Europe should collapse the repercussion on this country and on America must be of a very serious kind. I venture to appeal to a still stronger motive. It is not the first time the world has had to appeal for assistance to the Anglo-Saxon race. Never has the appeal been so urgent as it is now. The whole fabric of our civilisation is in danger. Unless we can really get the conditions of Europe back to normal, unless we can succeed in getting Europe at work again, and commerce and social intercourse once more established, it is impossible to exaggerate the danger that may be before us. I can only say that in my judgment humanity is waiting for our decision, and I express the earnest hope that it will not wait in vain.

SITUATION IN RUSSIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The moral effect of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to be that to raise the blockade is not enough, and that, in addition, we must also have international co-operation in finance. I only regret the right hon. Gentleman did not go further and urge not only international co-operation in finance, but also the higher international co-operation in idealism and in brotherly love, which is as essential to the establishment of real civilisation as the more material side of international finance. We on these benches welcome the right hon. Gentleman's return to Parliament, and we are extremely proud of the example he has set for English tradition and English character in Paris. It will be seen later that his efforts in regard to the League of Nations, and also in connection with the international economic situation, have secured recognition in quarters where his merits were not before so fully recognised.
We are here not only to welcome back the Noble Lord opposite, but also the Prime Minister. He, too, has in a way surprised some of those who did not receive his support at the last election by the admirable way in which he has carried on his work in Paris. The Prime Minister, in spite of all the yapping of the Press and the telegraphing of his followers, has maintained an even course absolutely in
accordance with his Liberal past in backing up the Liberal ideas of President Wilson, and doing his best to re-establish the world on the basis of justice and self-determination. Although we have missed him from this House, we have seen that he was doing more useful work for the future of this country in Paris. I am glad he has come back, because I think we need him here more than in Paris. The fact is that it is not only the rest of the countries of Europe that are going to rack and ruin but this country as well, owing to the want of co-ordination in the different departments of government, and the general business of Cabinet rule here requires a head who will make some effort to co-ordinate the Departments and secure that there shall be a reasonable economic administration of this country.
Everyone knows that the Board of Trade is the public Department which is most open to criticism, and its system of maintaining restrictions on imports and exports has been quite inadequately defended in this House, and I am certain it would not have been tolerated if the Prime Minister had been more in this country recently. There is another Department which to me seems to require the firm hand of the Prime Minister. We all realise that when we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) and the Noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil) at the Foreign Office, we had then people in charge of foreign affairs who at any rate could be trusted to maintain some of the old traditional Liberalism of view that we associate with Palmerston, and even with Mr. Gladstone in the past. Now we have at the head of the Foreign Office and in this House representatives who are not either sufficiently Liberal or strong to carry on those traditions, and consequently the Foreign Office, which has always wanted a firm hand to control its reactionary tendencies, is going from bad to worse. During the War there was a constant struggle between the Foreign Office and what was known as the Garden City, consisting of the Members of this House who were working more directly under the Prime Minister. This struggle went on, and now not only has the head of the Foreign Office changed, but we have now got Lord Curzon there, who is probably the most exact type of the eighteenth century Tory you could find.
Then followed the dissolution of the Garden City suburb which used to keep a check on the Foreign Office, and conse-
quently you have foreign affairs conducted by the most reactionary element in the whole country. You have now a serious Egyptian situation, into which we have been dragged deliberately by the Foreign Office without rhyme or reason. They recalled Sir Reginald Wingate because his views did not agree with theirs, and because he thought that Egyptian views should be listened to and considered. As soon as they recalled him they sent out General Allenby, and the result was that he insisted on the carrying out of those reforms that Sir R. Wingate had asked for and had not obtained. This mere stupidity of the Foreign Office has involved us in a very critical situation, and what is far more serious we see in the Prime Minister's absence there has been a direct conflict of policy between the Foreign Office and the War Office and the policy advocated by the Prime Minister. That is where the danger is likely to come from. Before we know where we are we may find ourselves committed to expeditions either in Russia or Roumania or any part of the Far East, which is wholly opposed to the genuinely Liberal policy of the Prime Minister and President Wilson.
The papers one day are suddenly filled with news of the critical situation of our force at Archangel, where we are told we may expect another Kut unless something is done at once. We remember the cry that was raised of the women and children being in danger at Johannesburg in 1896, and this produced the well-known Jameson raid. We have this danger constantly flaunted in our faces. The newspapers are inspired with it, and the public get into a panic. The result is that the War Office gets carte blanche to send troops to Archangel, and we are committed without the consultation of the Prime Minister by the Foreign Office and War Office combined to an enlarged expedition to Archangel. The result is that men who wish to be demobilised and get back to their businesses, and who have been three or four years in the service, are either being detained at Archangel, or are being sent out there with a rush.
It may be that there is a real danger in Archangel; but from what I can hear the chief danger comes from the fact that the Russian troops that are co-operating with us have a fatal habit of deserting to the other side whenever they get a chance. What we do want, both from the Foreign Office and the War Office, is an assurance that in any case this demand for relief
for Archangel or for the troops on the Murman Coast is not merely a mask for getting there a force which will make a further advance, and, indeed, make a dash, upon Petrograd and so by a sudden dramatic coup end the present Russian Government. What we want to have, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's speech to-day, when he said that peace was the one thing necessary—though I should say, rather, that peace was the first thing necessary—is an assurance that when we have a division, or two divisions, in Archangel those troops will not be used for a sudden aggressive campaign, and that no amount of urging from the Archangel end as to the extraordinary facility with which this advance could be made shall, as in the case of the advance on Bagdad four years ago, be allowed to induce the Government to sanction a further advance which may commit us to indefinite liabilities in that country. We know quite well how these things begin. The military on the spot take matters into their own hands. They assume responsibility, and the country is dragged in behind the military element in order to rescue people who appear to be in peril. I do ask that we shall have to-day an assurance that there will not be any question of using the troops which have been sent to Archangel for a further advance in the direction of Petrograd, but that during the time that they are there they will be used strictly as a defensive force to enable us to protect, if it must be by arms, the people whom we have promised to protect in Archangel and to help to withdraw the troops that are there as soon as possible. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the country is extremely alive to this question of the use of our troops in Russia. I have had letters from all over the country and resolutions passed by trade unions from the North to the South of England. They are all unanimously against this idea of an expedition to Russia, partly, of course, owing to the fact that they realise that we are attacking not so much a system of terrorism as a system of communism which is unpopular among the ruling classes, and also because the parents of the men who have served so long resent their sons being used in this way after they have been enlisted to fight for other purposes. I have a letter which says:
I resignedly submitted to losing a boy in France, but I will not resign myself to losing one in a place where we have no business to be interfering.
That sort of thing is being said by parents of all these men who are being sent out to Russia. They fear that this force, as soon as it is there, will be used to make an attack upon Russia. Our fears in this matter are based on the attitude of the Foreign Office towards Russia. It seems to me that they are ready to support any methods which may serve to overthrow the dreaded idea of revolution. Looking back on the history of the relations of our Foreign Office with the Russian Revolution, hon. Members will see that we have every ground for supposing, if there is a choice between right and wrong, that they will go wrong. We know Kerensky received no support from this country. He was perpetually regarded as a revolutionary and not a fit associate for the diplomatic body. He was turned down when he pressed for peace. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the evidence given by Colonel Raymond Robins as to how he was approached by Kerensky to get help from the Allies to see that none of the ammunition got into German hands. That, too, was turned down, because these revolutionary people must not be dealt with on any account whatever, not that they were not ready to attack the Germans, but that they were Bolshevists and revolutionaries, and that was enough to secure the hostility of the Foreign Office. Take the mad conduct of the Foreign Office in connection with Tchitcherine, now the Foreign Minister in Russia. He was in this country when the Bolshevist Revolution came about in November, 1917. Directly the revolution took place, Tchitcherine, who was proclaimed by the Bolshevists as their agent in this country, was put in prison. He was kept there, with every sort of indignity, and finally he was expelled from this country with equal indignity. If you were going to treat a man like that you should not have sent him back to a country where he could be a nuisance to you. I should have kept him here permanently rather than have sent him back to Russia to become one of the Ministers.
Their attitude towards Tchitcherine was part of their attitude towards the old regime. While they kept Tchitcherine in prison, they continued and paid the salary of Nabokoff, the old representative of Russia in this country, and to-day the British taxpayer is finding the pay of the old Czar's agents in this country.
That was not enough. Our representative in Russia, according to the Russian
account, and it has never been denied, was engaged in a plot to overthrow the Revolutionary Government in Russia. I do not say that I would not have done exactly the same. When the Government of the country arrested him there was an outcry as to the wickedness of the Russian Government in arresting a member of the diplomatic body. A member of the diplomatic body in any country who tries to upset the existing government and who meddles in the internal affairs of that country is playing an extremely dangerous game and must take the responsibility for the risk. I submit that it is contrary to all the practice of the diplomatic body, contrary to the practice of this country, and to the practice of diplomacy in all countries, that diplomats should take sides in the political conflicts of the country to which they are accredited. We were promised by the Noble Lord opposite that we should have a full report of what Mr. Lockhart has done. We have never had that report. It was the Lockhart plot, and the attempt on Lenin and the murder of Uritsky which really started the terror in Russia. It was the realisation of the Bolshevists that they were threatened on the one side by external attack and on the other side by assassination from within that really started in Russia the terror in exactly the same way that terror was started in France in 1793. The evidence of that is to be found in the White Paper produced by the Foreign Office. This White Paper states, I think in two places, that the terror was the direct result of the Lockhart plot and the attempt on Lenin. That was in September. The terror was at its worst in October, and much as we must all of us deplore the excesses to which it has gone I think we ought, in fairness, to realise that during the first six months of Bolshevik rule there was no murders and no terror. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I should be very glad to be told of any. I have stated what is my information.

Lord R. CECIL: Two Ministers were killed at that time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not by order of the Government. That was before the Revolution. I assert that there were no executions whatever by order of the Government for the first six or eight months, and it was not till then that massacres swept over the country, stirred up by the worst classes in the country. As soon as a Government starts
general executions, then every ruffian in the country takes it into his own head to become a private executioner, and you get a welter of blood such as we see in Russia at the present time. The attitude of the Foreign Office is, we must admit, to support any methods or any Government which will upset the Resolution, and they go on carrying that out in spite of the fact that every time they make the effort it fails. They try to use the Russian people against the Revolution and the weapon breaks in their hands. Russia has become a Socialist State, and its success or example has to be destroyed according to the ideas of the Foreign Office. As long as we carry on our politics on these lines we are not only doomed to failure in Russia, but also to a perpetual indefinite war which will finally complete the bankruptcy of civilisation. You will have to continue fighting in Russia until you have driven the last Bolshevik out of the country, or else you will have to acknowledge it as a communistic State, disagreeable as it is to its neighbours throughout the world, and terrible as it is to contemplate in any industrialised country such as England that they have got a more or less anarchic country as a neighbour.
Russia is a Communistic Socialist State and there we must leave it. Unless we are prepared to continue war indefinitely for its suppression, it will be impossible to set up any Government in Russia—and I believe the Foreign Office will realise it as much as anyone who has come back from that country—it will be impossible to set up any Government there opposed to the present communistic Government unless you leave British bayonets there to support it, because the moment the British bayonets are withdrawn that Government will be upset. The fact is, there have been established vested interests in the Revolution. Every little peasant in Russia has since the Revolution acquired land which he had not got before. He knows perfectly well that his retention of that land depends on the permanency of the Revolution, and human nature being what it is, hon. Members can see that in any country where the vast bulk of the population are peasants who are of opinion that their vested interest is in the permanence of the Revolution, the permanence of the destruction of the landlords, it is impossible to get back to the old position where the peasant will lose his land and become again the tenant of the tyrannical landlord. It was exactly
the same in the French Revolution, which was made permanent by the confiscation of the Church lands and their sale to peasants in France. These lands were bought by the peasants at a low price, and every man was determined that the bourgeoise should not come back until his title to the land was recognised. Consequently, the French Revolution, which was as anarchistic as Russia, became established, and no one has been able to return to the old system, which was completely wiped out, the peasants being left in possession of their assignats. We want to impress the Foreign Office at the present time that it is no good hating a form of government, and stirring up hatred against it in this country. If you are not prepared to continue war with that country indefinitely, you had better make up your mind that, bad as the Government is, it had better be tolerated rather than have an indefinite war for the suppression of an idea which is naturally unpopular among the governing classes.
The White Paper which has been produced is thoroughly typical of the Foreign Office. I do not know whether hon. Members have read it, but if they do they will see that it is largely composed of dished-up atrocity stories. I would submit that at the end of a long war it is about time to stop this sort of thing, and to try and re-establish the brotherhood of man, instead of stirring up international hatred. The stories are worse than any atrocity stories we have seen during the War told against Germany, but they are almost uniformly based on anonymous representations from Russia. There was the one given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Lieutenant-Colonel Guinness) about the Bolshevik Government employing Chinese executioners who were sawing prisoners into pieces. When I asked him about it he referred me to the White Paper. I ask him, as an honest English gentleman, to look at that White Paper and see what it says there. It is stated that an anonymous Englishman coming from Russia was told at Stockholm by an anonymous Esthonian that these things were taking place in Esthonia.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I think the hon. and gallant Member is misrepresenting the matter. That may be what is said in the White Paper, but that was not my source of information. I had been told it by a Russian who has escaped
from Russia and who had either seen or spoken to people who had witnesed these things.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that the Foreign Office would put into the White Paper the best evidence it could obtain of these atrocities, and if they had not any better authority to put in than that of an anonymous Englishman, told by an anonymous Esthonian, I do not think he can have evidence very much superior to that. Again, I find in the White Paper the dished-up story about the Bolshevik government communalising women. It is dealt with in a letter by a parson who actually signs his name. But we know how that story started. It was started in "New Europe," a paper conducted by Mr. Wickham Steed, who is now the editor of that eminently respectable journal the "Times." In "New Europe" appeared the story of the nationalising of women by Bolsheviks in Russia, and I believe it played a large part in the election, because the Press immediately took it up and said that the Bolshevik had communalised the women, and in that way encouraged indiscriminate sexual relations. The "New Europe," which started the matter, had the grace to say that they found out it was a lie and to acknowledge it. They said that they had found out that this was merely the declaration of some obscure anarchist State in Samara. Yet we are still fed with all these stories, and they still find their place in the Government's White Paper and in the statement of this parson, who is carrying out his traditional role of stirring up hatred and dissension among men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is the story. I do not know whether the House would like me to read it. [HON. MEMBEES: "No!"] Then we will take it as read. That is an example of the stories given by the Government in the White Paper. The Foreign Office should know better than to produce a White Paper which not only does not seem to have had its stories reasonably edited, but seems not to have been edited in the least by anybody who knew anything about Russia. The White Paper gives no account by anybody coming from Russia who had anything good to say about the present Government there. There was nothing from Mr. Douglas Young or Colonel Raymond Robins, or any of those people who were able to find something good in the
Russian Government. They have all been left out altogether. What has been put in are long accounts by an anonymous "Mr. D." as to the present Government in Russia. The names of all the people are given wrong. This gentleman talks of the members of the Government as being "So-and-so." Every one of the names is wrong. He leaves out half the Ministers. What are we to think of a Foreign Office which does not keep an editorial staff or a Secret Service staff capable of checking statements as to who at present form the members of the governing council in Russia. The Foreign Office have made mistakes over and over again in this War in regard to our attitude towards Russia, because they dislike, not murder, but Socialism. This country is going to suffer, unless the Prime Minister exercises a more strict supervision over the Foreign Office solely because the Foreign Office and the War Office, and indeed many of the governing classes of this country object to Socialism, and are prepared to continue an indefinite war in order to suppress the one manifestation of it we have at present. What is happening in Hungary? Since the starting of the Soviet Government they have set up a maximum thirty-six-hours week for apprentices; 37,000 children have been provided with a free bath weekly, and all the hospitals have become public, preference being given to proletarian patients. I suppose the next thing we shall hear of will be an expedition to Budapest to succour the landlords of Hungary. Where is all this going to end? Are we going to establish British Armies in Finland, Esthonia, Hungary, Roumania, Czecho-Slovakia, and all the border States, in order to keep off this Bolshevist terror? At present we have Allied troops in those countries, who can maintain order. Directly they go, these States will be in a revolutionary condition just as bad as Russia. What is more, we have the feeling that in a country like Roumania we are supporting the most reactionary landlord rule that exists in any quarter of the globe at the present time. The boyars of Roumania are notorious. Over and over again the peasants have revolted and been shot down. Only last December there was a revolt in Bucharest, and the Socialists there were massacred like sheep. Our troops are being used there to maintain that sort of rule. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Foreign Office desire to preserve monarchies at all costs.
The idea that it is the duty of British troops to preserve a monarchy in Roumania or to preserve the rule of the boyars of Roumania is perfectly iniquitous. A member of the Diplomatic Corps, leaving Bucharest in February last, said:
You are enjoying here a White Terror, such as has never been seen before.
4.0 P.M.
That is what is going on under the shelter of British bayonets. We are maintaining a regime detested by the people, consequently a situation is produced whereby troops will be required perpetually in order to preserve the existing state of affairs. There was a rising in Bessarabia, which was in Russia and where, consequently, the peasants got the land. Bessarabia has now been put into Roumania. The Roumanian Government now in power in Bessarabia are decreeing that the peasants shall give part of their land back to the landlords from whom they took it. Consequently you have unrest there and every peasant is a potential rebel in the years to come and a potential danger to any stable form of society, which is a direct postulate of the permanence of the British troops there in order to keep them down. These are the things which make me think that the Foreign Office wants looking after. It is not only the Foreign Office. We have in this country a spirit of resentment against the position in which we find ourselves, after this War, relative to America. A great many Members have the feeling, which is shared by a great deal of public opinion outside in this country, that we have been impoverished, and that America has made money out of this War, that she has stepped into our shoes and has assumed financial control of the world. That may be true, but I do urge upon hon. Members here to remember that, after all, the Anglo-Saxon race is the one to which we are much nearer than any other country in the world, and, speaking in a hackneyed phrase, blood is thicker than water. Anything that prospers America prospers us. Now, at any rate, we are really dependent upon America's good will in a way we never were before. It seems to me fatal for hon. Members like the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) to get up and attack President Wilson in this House or for hon. Members to urge the Prime Minister to cease to support President Wilson in Paris and to turn round and support the French. Nothing could be more fatal than that at the present time, when
the whole future of the world depends upon a real co-operation between England and America. [An HON. MEMBER: "And France!"] No; much more between England and America than between us and France. We have more or less the same ideals and the same democracy. We have more or less the same world-wide interests. In all our Colonies you find Americans and English mixing as though they were one people, whereas the French are a stay-at-home race, and do not colonies. We are here in face of a position where American and English co-operation is absolutely essential in future. We have had that position of danger before, and each time the Conservative leaders in this country, with their instinctive hatred of democracy, have split that natural union. We had it in the American War of Independence, which was largely caused by the hatred of the American democracy. At the time of the American Civil War the Conservative antidemocratic forces in this country stirred up hatred of America and again spoiled the natural alliance of the Anglo-Saxon race. Do not let us have it said that now, when the third great opportunity comes along, a real unity, not only of blood and language and tradition, but a unity in the reconstruction of the human race on decent lines, was baulked by this same insane hatred of democracy, insane hatred of anything which was Anglo-Saxon and yet strange in our history. This question of Anglo-Saxon solidarity has a great deal to do with the Russian question. If we deal with Russia on parallel lines to America, if we will treat all the problems that come up in Russia side by side with the Americans, whether we go right, or whether we go wrong, we shall, at any rate, be in good company. But, above all, do not let us act independently of America in Russia. Do not let us try to carry on expeditions which they do not approve of, without the co-operation of American troops.

Mr. LYON: May we share the railway concessions which Americans are now getting into Russia?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should certainly hope so, but I do not think your will find any difficulty from the Americans in allowing us to share in those concessions. The difficulty will be that we have not got the capital to invest in those concessions, unfortunately. That cannot be altered by anything we can do now. We have spent our capital. We have now to reconstruct
our capital. The only way in which we can reconstruct our capital is by a policy of peace and co-operation with America and not antagonising her and setting up the possibility of future competition in armaments with the great Republic across the seas. The real thing for us to do, therefore, is to strengthen the Prime Minister's hands in co-operating with President Wilson, not only in dealing with such questions as the indemnity, not only in dealing with such questions as the League of Nations, but, above all, in dealing with a country like Russia, where you have a problem of which no man can see the solution, but which can be handled either in co-operation with the democracy of America or in opposition to that democracy. I am confident that if the action taken is in co-operation with it, it will lead to our ceasing to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia and allowing the Russians to work out their own salvation in any way that suits them best. Ninety-three per cent, of the Russian people are at present satisfied with the Bolshevik Government. There is no doubt that the present Government in Russia is getting stronger. It is stronger than it was a year ago. It has recently overrun the whole of the Ukraine—a military feat of no small magnitude. They have widened it. They have taken in the leader of the Menshevist party and the leader of the Social Revolutionaries. The terror is diminishing. The White Paper itself bears evidence on that point. It is diminishing, because Lenin objects to terroristic methods. Things are getting better in Russia. The real terror in Russia is caused by the starvation of the country, and if we can raise the blockade upon Russia, if we can allow it to get back into ordinary trade relations with its neighbouring countries, we shall have done far more to put an end to the terror which is driving Russia to distraction now that you ever do by supporting emigrés. I beg the House therefore to consider that there are two sides to this question and that whether this Government is a bloodthirsty gang of ruffians or not, the common sense of the House and the common sense of all intelligent men, as well as of all humane men, should urge us to relieve ourselves from the Russian incubus at the earliest possible date and to make terms with the Government which will secure to those people who have come under our protection at Arch-
angel and elsewhere safety and fair treatment and at the same time enable us to drop military expeditions in this most unpromising country.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the very wide field he has covered. I am afraid he and I will never agree either as to the facts of the Russian situation or as to the interpretation this House should place upon them, but I am no less anxious than he is that a full statement of all the available information possible, both for and against the Bolshevist régime, should be placed at our disposal. If the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has any documents which put the Bolshevist régime in a more favourable light than that in which it has been placed in the White Paper that he has recently issued, I should welcome their inclusion in any future White Paper that he circulates. I believe not one half of the horrors of the Bolshevist régime have yet been disclosed. At the same time if there are any mitigating facts, if there are any reports of a contrary character, I should be only too glad to see them freely published by the Foreign Office. I listened with great interest and with some satisfaction to what the Prime Minister said in his very inspiring speech. I think he was perhaps a little bit hard upon some of the criticism which has been made of the actions of the Peace Conference. No one in this House wishes in any way to embarrass our delegates. We fully realise their difficulties. If it is difficult to manage a Coalition of two or three parties in this country, how much more difficult must it be to obtain unanimity in a Conference where there is a coalition of almost every country in Europe. We realise those difficulties, but we would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember our difficulties as well. Here we are with few sources of information, as anxious as he is as to the future peace we are going to have and naturally impatient that that peace should be signed as quickly as possible. We have seen the evil of delay during the War. We are anxious, with some reason, that those delays from which we suffered so greatly during the War should not be repeated at the Conference in Paris. So it is not without reason that we feel grave anxiety when we see such events as the Bolshevist invasion of Hungary, when
we see again such a calamity as the evacuation by the Allies of Odessa and the possession of the Littoral of the Black Sea by the Bolshevists. We realise the difficulties in which the Prime Minister is placed, but I would ask him to remember that it is not without some reason that we are anxious and somewhat impatient, particularly in the case of Russia. There, looking back, it is my view that the complexity of the Russian problem has been greatly increased by our continued policy of delay. Take, for instance, the evacuation of Odessa. I believe myself that if the delegates in Paris had recognised in a more definite manner that the one obstacle to a Russian settlement is Bolshevism, and had definitely stated and had officially recognised the de facto Government of Admiral Koltchak, which is fighting Bolshevism, events would not have drifted as they have drifted to a point where we have had to evacuate Odessa and the greater part of the Crimea.
I believe again that, in the case of our intervention in Russia, a great many of our difficulties have been directly due to our policy of delay and vacillation. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) and I disagree as to many causes of our intervention in Northern Russia, but there is one side of it on which I am in agreement with him. I wish no more than he that this country should be dragged into a great and new war in Russia. I have never disguised that fact, because I believe that it is out of the question to send a big Allied Army. Quite apart from the question as to whether it would be wise I believe that it is practically impossible; but I say that the Peace Conference has made a grave mistake in not strengthening an intervention which, by the nature of things, is limited, by every other means in its power. Supposing, for instance, that last August, when our troops first went to Northern Russia; supposing again, in the last few months, the delegates in Paris had officially recognised the anti-Bolshevist organisations, I believe that the moral weight that that recognition would have given to the anti-Bolshevist forces would have been worth, to the anti-Bolshevist cause, a very large number of Allied troops. I urge, therefore, that, setting aside the possibility of any large Allied force in the North of Russia, it is an elementary need that we should reinforce our efforts by the moral weight that recognition of Admiral
Koltchak's Government would give. I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) is sincerely convinced that the Government of Admiral Koltchak is a reactionary Government. I believe, just as sincerely that is not the case. If that were the case, I should say that we had no right whatever to attempt to impose a Government on anyone, but it is because I sincerely believe that the first action of the anti-Bolshevist Government will be to enable Russia to determine for itself what Government it desires—it is because I believe that the only hope of self-determination in Russia is the destruction of Bolshevism—that I urge on the representative of the Foreign Office to bring his weight to bear with the Prime Minister to give Admiral Koltchak's Government immediate recognition.
I do not desire a new war in Russia; I do not desire the return of reaction; during the whole time that I was in Russia what little weight I had I threw into the scale against reaction; but I do urge on the Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office that, if peace is to be obtained, the Russian problem must be settled, and if the Russian problem is to be settled, Bolshevism must be destroyed. I believe that one of the best ways to destroy Bolshevism would be to give the whole weight of our moral support to the forces that are fighting Bolshevism. On that account it seems to me to be the height of unwisdom, at the very moment that we are sending reinforcements to our forces in Northern Russia, to talk of negotiation with Lenin's Government. There was no passage in the Prime Minister's speech that gave me greater pleasure than that in which he said that there were no negotiations whatever at the present time going on between Lenin's Government and the Peace Conference. Many of us have read reports in the public Press which led us to believe that such negotiations were going on, and I am glad that, after the disclaimer, first, of the Leader of the House, and, secondly, of the Home Secretary, we now have the definite statement of the Prime Minister that there is no idea whatever of recognising Lenin's Government. I hope that when the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs comes to reply he will be able to contradict many of the statements of fact which the hon. and gallant Member opposite made—the statement, for instance, that the Bolshevik terror did not begin until months after the Bolshevists came into power.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is in the White Book.

Sir S. HOARE: I leave that to the Under-Secretary to deal with. Again, there was a statement made that we are bolstering up reaction in Roumania and other countries. If I believed that, I should say, Withdraw our troops and our influence to-morrow. It is because I believe the only hope for a European settlement is the destruction of Bolshevism that I urge him to take every step in his power, both by the moral support and by the material support that we can send them in arms and materials, to throw our whole weight into the destruction of the one force that is standing in Europe between us and peace.

Captain O'GRADY: I had not the pleasure of being able to listen to the Prime Minister's speech, because I was otherwise engaged. Therefore, I shall not comment on it. I am rising because of a certain observation made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I hope that there will be no such madness as would be involved in a war with Russia. Everybody who knows anything about the geography of Russia and her people knows that any army sent into Russia would be literally swallowed up, and would never get back again. Now I come to the point I want to raise in contradiction to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood). I have been trying to discover whether the Bolshevik Government is the Government of Russia. The hon. and gallant Member said that 95 per cent, of the population of Russia were Bolsheviks.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I quoted Raymond Robins.

Captain O'GRADY: I do not think we ought to accept that statement. He has given no proof of that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I mentioned 93 per cent, as being Raymond Robins' statement of the condition of things when he left Russia.

Captain O'GRADY: That is a mere statement. There is no proof in a statement of that character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman declared that the Government of this country have never rejoiced in the Revolution in Russia and bad never recognised it. May I draw his attention to the fact that in April, 1917, my hon.
and gallant Friend the Member for South West Ham (Colonel W. Thorne), myself, and another friend of ours outside, were asked to go to Russia. Although we had no definite instructions we were asked to convey to the Soviet in Petrograd and the Provisional Government, headed at that time by Prince Lvoff as Prime Minister, and of which Kerensky was Minister of Justice, congratulations on behalf of the British people on the successful revolution in Russia. That cannot be denied. You cannot have it both ways. In 1917, when Kerensky became Prime Minister of Russia, they passed a law enfranchising for the first time in the history of Russia 80,000,000 people, men and women. They brought into effect machinery for an election in November of the year. At that time Trotsky was not known so much, but Lenin was the leader of a particular party in Russia when the election took place. As long as the elections in Petrograd were going in favour of the Lenin party, the machinery which provided the franchise was said to be perfect, but when the election went against the Lenin party in the country, and it was absolutely certain that they would not be elected to power, Lenin and Trotsky headed a party which prevented a democratically-elected constituent assembly from sitting. As a democrat who believes in democracy, I say that there is not a single sentiment of democracy about actions of that character. That sort of thing has been persisted in all the way along. Now, the Lenin and Trotsky party, at the muzzle of the gun and by the bayonet, will not permit a democratically-elected assembly to sit in Petrograd to conduct the laws of the country.
I ask the hon. and gallant Member if he considers that the great bulk of the Red Army now is a purely voluntary Army, who are not compelled by the forces of Lenin and Trotsky to become soldiers. I do not like Conscription, but I submit that there is no form of Conscription in any civilised country in the world which is so stringent and so terrible as that form of Conscription applied to the armies that Lenin and Trotsky are leading at the present moment. Is it within the ambit of the philosophy of democracy for Lenin and Trotsky to send out emissaries into other countries where they have a democratically elected Assembly, and to organise in that country revolution against the popularly elected democratic Assembly with which the people of the country are
satisfied. Supposing that my hon. and gallant Friend and myself were to organise an agitation in this country to go into Russia and declare that the whole philosophy of Lenin and Trotsky and the Bolshevist philosopy was wrong, and that the only form of government they ought to have in Russia was our form of government. Would he object to that? Certainly he would. With regard to the terror that exists in Russia, is there any reason why these constant slaughterings should go on? I take the evidence of one of my own colleagues—one of our colleagues in this House—who wrote a letter to the Press the other day—I mean Colonel John Ward. He is a democrat of democrats. We know him well. My hon. and gallant Friend knows him as well as I do, and I think he will agree with me that a man of his responsible position, democrat that he is, would never make a statement of that kind unless it were based upon facts. He has seen with his own eyes the result of the kind of thing that is going on in Russia. If any democrat had been guilty of the atrocities, the murders, the pillage, and the destruction that are placed to the charge of Lenin and Trotsky, I, as a democrat, would like to see him strung up to the nearest lamp-post. I think we want to get to our bearings upon this question of Russia. It is a great country in the throes of convulsion, trying to rectify itself and to reconstitute itself, but it can never do that as long as it continues under the leadership of men whose whole part has been nothing but bloodshed, ruin, and desolation. We should help the people in Russia—and there are many of them—who are anti-Bolshevists. Quite 50 per cent. of the Russian people—peasants and the middle classes—are anti-Bolshevists and desire a stable government. If we can do anything to help these people to reconstitute Russia, and to save Russia for civilisation, we shall be doing the best work in the interests of the world.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: I ask the indulgence of this House in making my first speech. I shall be brief. I would like, first of all, to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister and what he said as regards the Peace Conference. I am sure that all patriotic Members of this House appreciate the Prime Minister's insistence on the maintenance of good relations with the countries with which we have been associated in the War. There is, however, one dark spot which is imperil-
ling our relations not only with the United States of America but with our own Colonies, and that is our sister nation Ireland. I am sure that the Prime Minister has been hampered more by the position in Ireland, and the example held out by us to countries that we were trying to get to see our point of view of Liberalism and self-determination and free settlement, than even by the telegram that I understand had been sent before I came to this House by a large body of the Members. While we are striving, as I believe generally, for the freedom of oppressed nationalities—the Poles, the Czecho-Slovaks, Greater Serbia, Jugo Slavia—surely the time has come when a real effort of statesmanship should be made to apply the same principle to our sister nation Ireland. Many of us in this House had the honour of fighting in the War. We fought with Irishmen, and I think Members of this House who fought in the War will bear me out when I say that they have borne themselves gallantly on all occasions. That alone should have changed the point of view of many hon. Members opposite.
Our position at present before the world, that we claim self-determination and freedom for oppressed nationalities—that is what we fought the War for—with 40,000 British troops in Ireland, when the Irish cannot have a public funeral without the attendance of British armoured cars, tanks and aeroplanes, is nothing else but ludicrous. I have been somewhat closely in touch with many sections of the citizens of this country recently, and I found that the views which I am now expressing were agreed with very widely by all classes with whom I came in contact. The policy of the Government, if I understand the Minister responsible for Ireland, is somewhat hampered by the unsettled conditions which are said to prevail in Ireland. At the present moment Poland is the spoiled child of the Allies. Everyone I am sure rejoices that the Poles have at last got their freedom, but their first act on regaining it has been to institute pogroms against their fellow Jewish citizens, who have helped them in their struggle for freedom for the last 20O years—since the partition of Poland. Their first act on receiving their freedom was to oppress the Jewish people living in Poland. They are being assisted in every way, and a settlement may be made in favour of Poland, which will possibly, if we make a mistake, imperil the future of Europe; and
yet, although it seems obvious that Poland is not ready for complete self-government without some form of guidance and assistance and possibly sympathy from Allied Powers, we still refuse the same principle of choosing her own form of government to our sister nation Ireland. This, I believe, has a most direct bearing on the delays in Paris. I believe that we have been hampered in our attempts to get the Italians to recognise the right to self-determination of peoples on the other side of the Adriatic by the position of affairs in Ireland.
I am the Member to whom the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) referred as mentioning the blockade in the course of the Prime Minister's speech. The Noble Lord has told us that the blockade is still being carried on against Germany for military reasons. The Prime Minister in his speech was careful to state that only with the utmost difficulty at the present moment could Germany scrape together 80,000 men. The Prime Minister went on to say that her heavy guns, aeroplanes, and munitions of war had all been taken from her, and that the danger of a revival of militarism in Germany—I mean at the present moment —is prevented by the sheer lack of means, and I fail to see the necessity in that case for this blockade to be carried on, extending not only to neutrals, to friendly countries, and our late enemies, but to our own country as well. The Prime Minister remarked, and I am sure that everyone agreed with him, that Europe was drifting rapidly into chaos and ruin. It is for us now to see whether we can restore those conditions of industry, trade, and ordinary social life in Europe, in allied, neutral, and friendly countries, to a state of public health.
The Member for Hitchin referred to the spread of Bolshevism, to which the Prime Minister was referring at the time. I only hope that our efforts to restore the normal trade and life of Europe as well as that of our own country will be realised fast enough to provide the natural means of settling Europe down. In reference to the remarks which have been made on the subject of Russia by the last two speakers, I would beg Members of this House to distinguish between the Soviet Government in Russia, the Soviet Republic, and the Bolshevik party. The Bolsheviki are a political party in Russia who obtained possession of the
Soviet system of government by the same means as those by which any political party can get possession of the government of this country, by a majority of this House. I do not know if I am telling hon. Members what they all know, but the Soviet system of government—I am not talking about the Bolsheviki at all, but the Soviet system of republican government—is only a linking together of town and village councils, trade union and professional organisations. For an illiterate nation like Russia, reduced to chaos and anarchy, I think it is an open question whether this principle of government is not a very suitable one at the present time. In fact, I believe that there are Members on this bench who would like to see some modification of it introduced into this country in order to assist our work in this House. The Trade Union Congress, with employers represented on it, permanently sitting as an industrial Parliament, would, I think, be of assistance to us on many questions in this House, and that that view is shared by Members usually sitting on the bench behind me. Therefore do not let us condemn the Soviet system of government simply because the Bolsheviki, whom certain Members dislike, I dare say with very good reason, have happened to be able to get possession of the machine. I ask that we should make perfectly certain, if I may use such an expression in this House, that we are "backing the right horse"
We have backed the wrong horse on several occasions in Russia already. We repeatedly recognised the separatist Government of the Ukraine. We supplied the Ukraine with French staff officers and munitions and every assistance, and the Ukraine joined our enemy, Germany. That I do not not think can be denied. Our French Allies, unfortunately, mistakenly recognised the Government of Finland as soon as they separated from the Soviet Government of Russia, in spite of the atrocities of the White Guard of Finland and of the atrocities committed during the suppression of the insurrection in Finland. They openly joined our German enemies and invited a German Prince to accept the Crown of Finland. There are two examples of occasions on which we backed the wrong horse. Are we certain that the Koltchak Government which the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea is pleading we should recognise is the right horse? Are we absolutely certain that the
Koltchak Army if it advances to Moscow, and upsets not only the Bolsheviki but the Mensheviki and the social revolutionists who have joined the Bolsheviki, though they hate them, in order to resist the invader—as I think in similar circumstances all classes in this country would unite—would not set up an autocratic dictatorship, and encourage military reaction in Germany, and that we should not find ourselves faced with a solid block of autocracy from the North Sea to the Pacific? Let us be quite certain we are backing the right horse, and that we are not blundering again, as I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member, our Government, wrongly advised by the Foreign Office, has blundered in the past in our dealings with the Ukraine since the Russian Revolution. I believe the great cure for what is known as Bolshevism—and I believe there are as many ideas of Bolshevism as there are parties in this House—are food and work and satisfactory conditions. Might that not be tried in Russia? It will be a great market in the future—to put it no higher. They have a great lack of manufacturing goods of all descriptions, machinery and rolling stock, and, on the other hand, an abundance of raw materials of which we have need. Is not that a way of trying to combat this terror which looms so large in the eyes of so many Members in this House? I do plead for making absolutely certain that we are pursuing the right policy in Russia.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: The House will, I think, have listened with interest to the maiden speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy) if only for the reason that he is the first speaker in this House who has, I think, declared himself against the Government of the ballot box and in favour of the Government of the Soviet. I think the objection of constitutionalists in this country to the present regime in Russia is by no means mainly owing to the excesses committed by the Bolsheviks—which, although unparalleled, are to some extent characteristic—but to the fact that the Soviets are entirely unauthorised by the people and have no kind of popular sanction. Now, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull stated that it would be the same sort of thing in this country if we were ruled by the Trade Union Congress. He shakes his head, but he did mention that.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: It would be an assistance, I believe, to this House in certain industrial questions; but, in any case, we have it now.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes; but the Trade Union Congress does not govern us on any but industrial questions.

Mr. JOHN JONES: It would not do that if you had your way!

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: It is an entirely new departure—

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very sorry to have to rise again—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. And gallant Member must allow a reply to be made.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. and gallant Member suggests putting aside the ballot-box and putting the country under the control of a purely class organisation, such as the Soviet of Russia or the Trade Union Congress here, and perhaps soldiers' and sailors' representatives allied with them. I do not wish to follow the hon. and gallant Member any further in this argument, but would like to come back to two aspects of the Paris Conference which the Prime Minister's speech did not entirely satisfy. The last few days have shown that the Prime Minister is not unmindful of opinion in this House, and, therefore, one is encouraged, while there is still time, to urge on the attention of the Government two very important matters which are still at issue in Paris. The right hon. Gentleman, gave us a more satisfactory account of the state of affairs in Russia than he was able to do on the former occasion, and to-day we were glad to hear that Bolshevism was comparatively on the wane. He gave us excellent arguments to show the urgency of some solution of the Russian problem, but he omitted to carry the arguments through to any conclusion. He begged us not to contemplate another great war, and, if I may say so, that warning was unnecessary, because if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the previous debates in this House he would know there is no party which has urged upon the Government the inception of a war in Russia, but that, on the contrary, those of us who have been raising this matter time after time wish to prevent the Government drifting into the necessity for further
armed action. It may seem unreasonable that we should feel uneasy on this question, as the Prime Minister to-day said there was not, and never had been, any question of recognising the Bolshevik Government. As he made that statement on the former occasion that he spoke on the matter, the House will perhaps forgive me if I quote the facts as they appear from M. Pichon's letter of 5th January. M. Pichon said:
The British Embassy has handed in the English proposal. This dispatch invites all Governments and all Russian parties to establish peace at once between them and the neighbouring States. In the event of the different Russian Governments, including that of the Soviet, accepting this invitation, they might send delegates to the Peace Conference.
You cannot have a more extreme form of recognition of a Government than to allow it to send representatives to the Peace Conference, and therefore our anxiety, I think, is justified, in view of the fact, which no doubt escaped the Prime Minister's memory, that a few short months ago he did make a definite offer that the Soviet Government should be allowed to send representatives to Paris.
It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the settlement of this Russian question, and our fear is that the matter is drifting into a worse condition. We have lost several opportunities of stopping the flood of anarchy. First of all, after the Armistice, we might have taken over the line which was then being held by the Germans in the Ukraine. We neglected to do so, and we allowed, by our omission, that rich granary to fall into the hands of the Bolsheviks. It is to the interests of this country that there should be a great Russia. We do not want to have a repetition of the troubles in the Balkans. We want a Russia which will be contented, stable, free from internal strife, and developing its industries and resources in a peaceable manner. We have not taken advantage of our opportunities to bring this about. We lately have seen a new and hopeful phenomenon. Instead of pieces continuing to break away from Russia, we see the opposite tendency. We see Admiral Koltchak's Government gradually growing from strength to strength, and being supported by subordinate governments. You would imagine that we would be glad to recognise that, and to see in it the germ of a new and united Russia. In the past we encouraged those governments which broke away from the central government,
and we recognised Esthonia, and Lithuania, and Finland, and why is it that the Government will not recognise this growing orderly Government of Admiral Koltchak? It seems to me that they are omitting an obvious method for strengthening the forces of law and order which we wish to find paramount in Russia. It might be argued that they are not sufficiently established to be entitled to send delegates to the Peace Conference, but in view of the fact that there are delegates from Czecho-Slovakia, a far smaller State than that ruled by Admiral Koltchak, I do-not think there is much in that argument. Anyhow, there is no force in refusing to recognise Admiral Koltchak's Government as a de facto government, in view of our action in the case of Esthonia and Lithuania. If we did that, I am certain that we should do very much to set back the position of the Bolsheviks. Here in this country there are very few now, and in this House perhaps none, who openly profess their sympathy with the Bolsheviks. The most effective means of helping the Bolsheviks has lately proved to be that of decrying the Government of Admiral Koltchak as a monarchist and reactionary Government. That Government is pledged to a constituent assembly, and Admiral Koltchak, in a speech delivered a couple of months ago, stated that
in the Russia that is to be, only a democratic regime is possible. The main task of the Government is to establish universal suffrage in the sphere of democratic self-government and thoroughly progressive legislation in the sphere of labour and agrarian questions ";
and it is because of Admiral Koltchak's stand for a Constituent Assembly that it seems so urgent that we should do all in our power to strengthen his position. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to this Debate for the Foreign Office to tell us why it is that we are helping the Bolsheviks indirectly by withholding the support which we might give to their opponents. We must have some policy in Russia, some alternative to acknowledging the Bolsheviks, or military intervention, and we are entitled to know what that alternative is. We were glad to hear that there are no immediate negotiations with the Bolsheviks, but the Prime Minister did not tell us what was the truth about the continual statements which we have seen that there is a proposal to feed Russia through neutral channels. The Bolshe-
viks were the first to invoke the weapon of starvation, and they have now found it a double-edged one. With the weapon of hunger the Bolsheviks destroyed the resistance of those who disagreed with them, but economic forces, the dumb efforts of the peasants to free themselves from this tyranny, are now turning the other edge, of the weapon against the Bolsheviks themselves. Will the Government tell us definitely whether or not we are contemplating to send food to Russia, and, if so, how it is suggested, in view of the Bolsheviks controlling the whole organisation of the country, that we shall prevent that food giving a new lease of life to that Government, which by every admission we wish to see upset?
There is one other point on which I would like to say a few words, and that is the question of Poland. We have heard lately a great deal of the controversy as to whether Poland is to be afforded an outlet to the sea. It is one of those difficulties which has arisen from the abstract principles which were laid down among the fourteen points, and it is complicated by the fact that if you give Poland this outlet you may withhold from a small section of the German race the abstract right of self-determination. It happens in this case that the whole of the governing Powers at the Peace Conference are in favour of giving Danzig to Poland, except the Prime Minister. Although America was the inventor of self-determination, the United States recognised the exceptional needs of Poland and has accepted as a lesser evil the putting of a small number of Germans under Polish control. The matter appeared to be agreed, when the Prime Minister refused to assent, with the result that the Danzig agreement was sent back to the Commission which had considered the matter and which had reported unanimously in favour of that particular solution. That Commission, which was very well informed on the matter, again sent back a unanimous report in favour of Danzig and the corridor being given to Poland to ensure her outlet to the sea, and we do not yet know what will be the result of the second reference back to that special Commission of this question of Danzig. It is very disquieting that our representatives should have taken this line in Paris. One cannot fail to notice that we bore with equanimity the position under which
millions of Poles were subjected to a very harsh German rule, but when the question arose of putting a smaller number of Germans under the Poles, we find our representatives immediately invoking the principle of self-determination. This matter is, unfortunately, only one of several parallel cases, and it is to be hoped that the Government will see their way to re-move their veto on this solution of a strong Poland and that they will extend the same principles to Czecho-Slovakia, and to Jugo-Slavia, and the other small States which are being built up in Europe, It seems to me that the creation of these small States in a self-supporting condition is a matter of enormous importance to this country, and in the creation of each one of these small States we shall have to strike a balance between national security and this principle of self-determination. If we strike the wrong balance, and these States are set up on a weak basis, it is perfectly certain that before many years are past they will fall under the control of Germany, and I do ask the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply, to deal with this matter and to give us some information, and I suggest that where the security of our friends clashes with the self-determination of our enemies, the security of our friends should have the preference.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYNES: As the House will have noticed, the Debate in its later stages has tended to become almost solely a discussion on internal government in Russia. While saying something on that subject, I would like to go back to the speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), for, next to the more important parts of the speech by the Prime Minister, nothing I think has been said of greater weight and importance than was uttered by the Noble Lord. He told us that the most urgent of all the problems was the restoration of a composed economic condition, especially in Central Europe, and he pictured what is the state of things in Russia, in Austria, in Germany, and in other directions. We cannot get away from the fact that the state of things in those countries is inseparably linked up with the domestic state of things in our own land, so that in some senses we are a Parliament acting not only for the United Kingdom, but indirectly for many other parts of the world. I do not agree that the Government have used
all its available opportunities and all its most effective, instruments for dealing with the grave situation which has been created. We cannot escape this possibility, that even such eloquent utterances as those which the Prime Minister delivered here this afternoon do not carry us very much nearer to a state of peace and social and domestic and internal order in various parts of Europe. I cannot, for instance, see any weight in the Prime Minister's argument for not yet having completely raised the blockade, particularly in respect of Russia and Germany. Germany is so incapable of any effective resistance, either of a military or of any other kind, that this country need not live in any fear of Germany being able to overcome the conditions which the Armistice has imposed upon her. She cannot raise an army; she is too distracted and disturbed by her own difficulties to settle down to do so. What was an empire has become just an aggregation of small countries and internal factions, incapable of any united efforts for any resistance to this country—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act, 1919.
2. Representation of the People (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1919.
3. Army (Annual) Act, 1919.
4. Parliamentary Elections (Soldiers) Act, 1919.
5. Local Elections (Expenses) Act, 1919.
6. War Charities (Scotland) Act, 1919.
7. Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Act, 1919.
8. Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1919.
9. Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
10. North British Railway Order Con-firmation Act, 1919.
11. Standard Life Assurance Company Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
12. Brentford Gas Act, 1919.
13. Cavendish Clarke's Divorce Act, 1919.

EASTER RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).

Question again proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. CLYNES: (resuming: I was saying that I do not think the Government has used all its available powers to produce those particular things which the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin convinced us were essential to the speedy peace of the world. I reject entirely the view of the Prime Minister that a continuance of the blockade has been necessary in the case either of Russia or of Germany, or of both, for military reasons at least in the case of Germany. The weakened and torn condition of Germany makes it impossible for her to offer any effective resistance, if she were disposed to try it, because of the Armistice conditions that have been imposed upon her. It may be innocently, but to the Government in reality is due a continuance of the disturbed state of the world, because we cannot have restored trade, we cannot have internal conditions that will give us stable and responsible Governments in these other parts of the world so long as the people are in a starved condition and in regard to their food and trade requirements. The free flow of food supplies and the inter-play of trade and commerce as between one country and another are impossible so long as the blockade is there. So soon as we were secure in a military sense it would have been, I think, the wisest statesmanship for us to make it easy for the different countries of the world speedily to resume their normal trade and economic relations. The Prime Minister pointed out that when the Brest Treaty was forced upon the representatives of Russia that there were territories then forming part of the Russian Empire which rebelled against these conditions and against those who, for the time being, were acting in the name of the Russian people. Had we decided then to help those who were in revolt by means of material, money, and men the case might have been different. Yet the Prime Minister acknowledged that effective assistance on any large scale must be moved out of the question. In a matter like this where Germany failed, when powerfully equipped with all the necessary material, we could not hope to succeed, and therefore any serious military attack, even acting without allies, would be impossible and could not hope to be successful. The conclusion I come to is that
military interference with what is going on in Russia on a large scale is beyond our power, and must be ruled out as totally impossible, and even if it could be undertaken on a large scale, there would belittle prospect of success in the long run. On the other hand military intervention on a small scale is futile, and mischievous indeed so far as the creation of public opinion is concerned. That is why so many labour voices have been raised as to what are precisely our objects in Russia in our military enterprises.
I am not arguing that if British subjects are in danger in any part of Russia, or even those who are our allies in Russian territory are in danger, that we should leave them unprotected. I would go to the length of offering military assistance based upon voluntary military service, for the purpose of protecting the lives and interests of those who come either under the description of British subjects or are our allies in a great cause. I think the Prime Minister has failed to justify the policy of the Government in regard to Russia, and it is little use hon. Members here continuing academic discussions as to what ought to be the conditions of government in that part of the world. It will not avail us much to try and weigh and balance what ought to be the particular form of government which the Russian people ought to have. They must settle for themselves the, quality and value of their particular forms of government. The Prime Minister said that this country traditionally is against interfering with the affairs of any other country, and we ought to leave them alone. Hon. Members in this House who support the Government ought not to urge them to use our resources and the military power of this country in order to interfere with the system of government in Russia, in order to make them adapt it to our view. I had an opportunity of seeing, in my position as Food Controller during the period when the Armistice was signed, how much the food situation determined great political issues. We have seen since how much the food situation has had to do both with creating and allaying internal trouble.
I detest the idea of Bolshevism, and its methods are as reprehensible to me as anything can be. So far as I can come to a conclusion on the facts, I think it would be better to try and kill Bolshevism by feeding it rather than by fighting it. It is a state of panic and distraction, the people being not only torn with their
own divisions and their own momentary wretchedness, and this has driven a large portion of the Russian population to extremes. I reject altogether the definition of the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that our attitude towards Russia is determined by our hostility to Bolshevism. He stated that there is now in Russia an aggregation of Socialist States, and he seemed to attach the same meaning to the words Bolshevism, Communism, and Socialism, but all these words to me have very different meanings. Bolshevism is the very negation of Socialism, as I have understood it, for Socialism is a state of government in a country in which social needs are socially owned and controlled, but Socialism is necessarily a companion of democracy and inseparable from it, and democracy is inseparable except it exists through the medium and finds expression, through Parliamentary institutions acting not for any one class but for the whole community, and working through the will of the majority of the people's elected representatives, and acting for them in the ordinary democratic manner. Bolshevism does not express itself through elective institutions. The leading Bolshevists are not working-class representatives, but are self-appointed persons having, their own view of what government should be, and pursuing definitely, by a revolutionary method, the attainment of their views by domination, and by the extermination of the classes who differ from them. The more the working classes understand how vicious, unjust, tyrannical, and dictatorial Bolshevik methods are, the more unitedly will they reject them.
I would like to refer to the Prime Minister's reference to the steps which have been taken at the Paris Conference to establish by international means something like uniform labour and industrial conditions in the various countries of Europe. My first criticism is, that the Government would have done better had they acted more generously and openly by inviting accredited representatives of organised Labour in this country to take part in the discussions of these problems and in their settlement. I have the greatest respect and the highest regard in every respect for the personal qualities and, ability of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), but I repeat that he is not accepted as a repre-
sentative of industry in its organised sense. He is not connected with the Parliamentary Labour party, he is not the spokesman or representative of any organised body outside in the country, and, useful as I am certain that his labours have been and great as I know his knowledge to be on these questions, yet I say that the Government would have enlisted a greater measure of the confidence of the working classes of this country and of organised Labour had they done the generous thing in this matter and lived up to the spirit of certain pre-election statements that were made on behalf of the Government as to the place that Labour would have in connection with the peace deliberations. It is of the highest importance that our high level of conditions in respect of wages and working hours shall not be undermined and destroyed by the low level of the state of things in certain other manufacturing countries in the remote parts of the world. Indeed, I think we shall find it very difficult to maintain our high standard if at the same time we do not, either by international action or by some other method, make it impossible for the sweated goods of other parts of the world to come into our country in keenest competition with our own products produced under better terms
The Prime Minister asked us to give him and the whole of those who are acting on behalf of the Allies, our confidence in the belief that when their work is finished it will be seen to have been fully in harmony with the pledges that were given to the electors of this country. I am not content with that invitation. This House and the country are entitled to know more of what is actually going on in Paris. Though we can, as I know, overdo a certain form of criticism and nag too much at those who are acting in our name, yet we are entitled to be more fully informed as to certain of the main lines upon which these discussions and negotiations are proceeding. What becomes of all the promises of open diplomacy? What about all that talk of bringing these great doings of the statesmen of Europe to a level where at least some of them can be understood, if we are to be told on any occasion when there is any criticism that we must keep these matters secret until finally we have secured the signatures of the representatives of the German people? I am driven almost to the conclusion that we in this House will get our news of the main
outlines of this settlement, not from our own Government, but probably from Germany. They probably will be first to make known to the world what are these terms as soon as they are supplied to them. It will be nothing more than the humiliation of this House to have to receive its information first from that quarter. We are entitled to press upon the Government to take this House more into their confidence. If the confidence of the country is expected by those who are acting for us, then in turn we are entitled to call upon them to give us some information periodically in order that our confidence may be enlisted, and in order, acting for our constituents and for the country, that our wishes can find some expression in the affairs which are now being determined.
I am the last, I hope, to say a word which would interfere with the great authority which our representatives are wielding at this Conference, but those of us who are in close touch with the mind of Labour in this country know how much it is disturbed because these negotiations are so long drawn out. The outstanding mistake of those who are acting for us, in my judgment, is that they are seeking by this preliminary stage to settle great and varied details when they ought to have proceeded on the other line of coming as speedily as possible to a settlement with our great enemy, Germany. They could, in a very short time, in the course of two months' labour, have so settled matters as to have restored a balance to enable trade and commerce to resume its normal state of things. Instead of that we still have a great volume of unemployment at great cost, and it is still growing. There is a deepening dissatisfaction at the delay of these negotiations. We find ourselves at the stage when, in the course of a few weeks' time, everything will have been settled practically behind our backs, and the Prime Minister naturally will come down to this House expecting a Vote of Confidence in terms and conditions to which the House has in no sense been a party.

Lieutenant-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: The House is tired, this Debate is dying out, the Front Bench is almost empty, and it would be most unbecoming of me to detain the House for more than a very few moments, but there is an explanation which I should like to offer to the Prime Minister and which refers to the telegram, the famous tele-
gram, which has been criticised in so many different ways. The Prime Minister this afternoon assured the House that this telegram would serve some useful purpose before he had done with it. The "Daily Express" the other day, with its characteristic courtesy and its proverbial good taste, described it as "a blackmailing message"; and the following day Mr. Asquith, in the more abstemious and more temperate language of post-prandial orations, described it as "a minatory round robin." May I say at once that this telegram was sent in no minatory and in no threatening way to the Prime Minister. Perhaps you will allow me to say for the edification of the author of the inspired article in the "Daily Express" that until now at any rate the gentle art of blackmail has not permeated British polities, however common, however usual, and even however lucrative it may be to a certain class of newly-imported journalists. This telegram was signed by over 300 Members, 370 Members, of this House. It was signed in all good faith, and it had only one object in view. That was to strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister in the gallant fight which I believe he is making in order to see that a just and an adequate and a right amount of indemnity is imposed upon the enemy. We thought that it might help him if not only our representatives, but if the foreign representatives knew that behind the Prime Minister there was the great bulk of the Members of this House, solid and stolid, solemnly pledged to do everything in their power to exact the uttermost farthing that Germany could pay compatible with reason. I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is present. I do not know whom he is representing, whether it is the Prime Minister or a certain unimpeachable authority. But if he is representing the Prime Minister, will he kindly inform the right hon. Gentleman—because it is impossible to do it in any other way—that this telegram was written in good faith, and that it was signed by only his supporters? It was framed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and myself in the very best interests of the country.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I only wish to say a word or two on an aspect of the Peace Conference already touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieutenant-Colonel Guinness), who, towards the close of his in-
teresting speech, referred to what is, perhaps, the most urgent of international problems—the problem of Poland. The hon. Member went so far as to say that the influence of the Prime Minister alone prevented the cession of Danzig to Poland. It would require overwhelming evidence to convince me that my right hon Friend at the head of the Government, who is a great friend of small nations, as well as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, should be wanting in sympathy, or ability, or ingenuity, in securing that the problem of Poland should be adequately dealt with and fully achieved at the Peace Conference. But, of course, there have been circumstances lately which have given very natural anxiety to those who believe in a strong Poland and in the revival of that Poland which was one of the great Powers of Europe for five centuries, and which some of us think to be an indispensable element in a permanent peace. We are naturally disturbed by one or two things that have happened lately. I know the controversy as to the introduction of Allied troops into Poland through the port of Danzig, which ended apparently in a verbal acceptance by Germany of the power to do that combined with its not being used at all, would seem to the observer as if the port of Danzig were to be quite sacrosanct from the footsteps of Poles, armed or unarmed. I hope that the House, on this occasion, as this is an opportunity for discussing this problem, will not think it impertinent in me if I express the warm hope that my right hon. Friend, who is doing so much for his country in Paris, and to whom I, for one, desire to offer my whole-hearted congratulations upon, and to thank him most cordially for his magnificent speech to-day, will see his way clear to secure a complete solution of the Polish problem.
One has seen sometimes in the Press statements made which give a perfectly false impression of the historical constitution and position of Poland on the Baltic Sea. There are old men still living in this country who in their youth have met people who unloaded ships in the port of London which flew the free flag of Poland and which came from the independent port of Danzig, from an independent Poland. Therefore it is only one generation removed in the history of human memory when this was the port on the Baltic Sea of Poland, and it remains to this day an indispensable mouth for the Polish State. Without it no guarantee, no extension of
territory, no striking alliance with Western Powers, can save it if the time should come in the future, as it came in the past, when Germany and Russia together made up their minds to destroy it once more. With Danzig as its port it is in touch with this country and with France, and as long as the British Navy holds the position which it is the intention of every Member of this House it should hold, so long shall we be in touch with our Allies on that shore. If Poland can only ensure at the Peace Conference adequate shore territory with the port of Danzig, then are we in touch with Poland in the future, as it was in touch with us in days gone by. It is not true to suggest, as is done in some quarters, that Danzig was Polish some five hundred years ago and has not been Polish since. Its place in mediæval history and policy was distinctive as between the West and Royal Prussia, so called because it belonged to Poland and East or ducal Prussia—so-called because it belonged to ducal Prussia and was independent of Poland. No one asks for the restoration to Poland of the whole West of Prussia, but it is of the highest consequence that the solution come to at the Peace Conference should have an element of permanency in it. In Poland, and in Poland alone, have you the spectacle of a great nation which was politically destroyed and which now can be politically resurrected. Poland of all civilised nations the most prolific, and of all prolific nations the most civilised, in many respects more civilised than Germany, and obviously more advanced than Russia, presents to-day the spectacle in Europe of a gallant and brave nation fighting for freedom. It is on the strength of Poland, with its access to the sea, and the security that it can thereby get by being in touch with its Allies in Western Europe, that the future peace of Europe may largely depend. The question which arises in connection with Poland does not arise in the case of other smaller nations. The Jugo Slavs have suffered, but there has not been any period in modern history when a great Slav Kingdom existed with access to the Adriatic in the way in which Poland has existed with free access to the Baltic. The magnitude of the issue cannot be over-estimated, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will realise that it is in a spirit of most devoted loyalty and gratitude to him that I venture to represent to him. and respect-
fully to the House, how this and this alone is the accepted time for completing the restoration of a great nation and for making the future of Europe secure.

Lieutenant-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I should like to congratulate the House on the satisfactory temper and tone which have been apparent during the last fortnight. I have had the honour of sitting in many Parliaments, and I know it always takes a little time for new elements to come together. But I am sure all will agree with me that during the last two weeks we have acted more unanimously together than has been the case since the new House was elected, and this I am confident will tend to great efforts in legislation which must be for the benefit of the country at large. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon, and I was very glad to hear him state that he intended to stick to his election pledges right through. I was especially pleased with what he said on the question of indemnities. The country is concerned at the present moment chiefly with questions of foreign policy, with the indemnity which will supply us with capital by means of which we shall revise our industries, with the removal as quickly as possible of the restrictions which have been necessarily placed on trade during war-time, with the immediate reduction; of unproductive expenditure by large Departments which are no longer needed, with the encouragement of increased production and with the removal of the control of trade conditions, both external and internal, leading to a revival of trade and to increased employment. With regard to the question of the indemnity, the country is quite determined to get the largest amount it is possible to obtain from Germany. There is one strong point we ought to make. We should put in the full bill for what we consider we are entitled to, and let that amount be final. The details of how Germany is to pay is a questions which should be settled afterwards. It has been suggested that we should make the Central Powers pay as much as possible now and that we should keep on readjusting the amount they will have to pay as time goes on. That would be fatal, because there would be no inducement to Germany to make a great effort to pay off her debt. She would feel that the more she paid the more we should ask for, and, therefore, we should discourage her efforts to pay us off. We ought to settle the amount now, put
in the full bill, and then settle the best conditions under which Germany can pay us and give her such time as is necessary to pay all that it is in her power to pay. The Prime Minister asked for time and patience. I entirely agree with him. It is no good having a patched-up peace, made in a hurry, which will not last I am sure that the House in its present temper will be most patient and will give the Prime Minister all the time that is necessary. I would emphasise strongly that there is an immense feeling in the country that peace at home and peace abroad should be settled as soon as possible. Until we have peace in Europe, our trade will not revive and all the evils of unemployment and industrial unrest will remain. The sooner we get peace abroad, the sooner we shall have industrial peace at home. I assure the Prime Minister that so far as I am concerned I shall do nothing to hinder him, but everything to help. I hope he will make the greatest effort known in history to bring about that universal and lasting peace which we all so greatly desire.

Mr. SEDDON: The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is not in his place, otherwise I should have something to say with reference to the remarkable speech he delivered this afternoon. He seemed to be speaking as a new leader of the Labour party.

Mr. CLYNES: No!

Mr. SEDDON: I am glad that my right hon. Friend corrected his crude economics and his ideas of what Socialism and Communism really are. With reference to Bolshevism, I can hardly trust myself in this House to use language to describe it as I apprehend it, and I will content myself with quoting a couplet from Lord Bryon—
With such been the devil would fear to dwell,
Or in their sculls he'd find a deeper Hell.
I want to deal with one or two questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes). He was a little unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). He paid my right hon. Friend a compliment for his probity and honesty, but seemed to have a grievance in that, because he did not belong to the party who occupy the Opposition Front Bench, he was not a fit and
proper person to represent Labour at the Peace Conference. I have known the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division for a good many years, and I would put my money on the right hon. Gentleman having a very high place in the ballot among the sane trade unionists of this country. It has been said that we must not do anything to hurt or possibly create suspicion in the United States. That suggestion coming from the Labour benches shows that they have forgotten one or two incidents during the War. All will admit that Mr. Samuel Gompers, the President of the American Labour movement, does speak for organised labour in America. When he arrived in this country, great efforts were made to secure his support for a Stockholm conference or a conference to be held in Switzerland. As spokesman of the American Labour movement, he laid it down definitely that they were not prepared to meet the Germans. The Labour party evidently did not think they would annoy America by taking a different course. Mr. Gompers refused to go to the conference, and in doing so I think he was wise. The Labour party went, but there was no suggestion then that in taking that course they were in any way creating dissension between organised labour in America and organised labour in this country. If the representatives of the Americans would not meet the Germans, I am positive that they are not prepared to meet the Bolsheviks in any circumstances whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Prime Minister had adopted the methods of secrecy in his diplomacy. He forgets the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, that the peace terms are terms that have been agreed upon between himself, President Wilson, the French Premier, and the representative of Italy. Does the right hon. Gentleman want the Prime Minister of this country to break faith with his three colleagues at the Peace Conference? If these men, who have honestly been trying to bring about a just peace whereby Germany shall suffer for her crimes, are agreed, surely in the name of common-sense we ought to give our confidence to our own Prime Minister, who is standing loyally by the three other gentlemen who represent the other great Powers in this War. It is riding a theory to death and reducing it to absurdity to say that the British Prime Minister, having come to a
compact with America, France and Italy, should be the one to break faith. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to trust the Prime Minister to carry out the negotiations. I am exceedingly sorry that the representatives of the Labour party have tried, in effect, to invite the Prime Minister to break faith with President Wilson, the French Premier and the representative of Italy. To ask the Prime Minister to make an announcement as to the Peace terms in the House of Commons, when it has been agreed that they shall not be discussed by the respective Parliaments until they have been communicated to the Germans, seems to be asking our Prime Minister to do something which is dishonourable. I would thank the Prime Minister for his courageous speech this afternoon. He has faced the issue with great frankness up to the present, and I am prepared to trust him for the future, believing that he is animated by the desire with which every patriotic Briton is animated, namely, that the best shall be done for the country to which we belong, and that Germany shall pay to the uttermost farthing for the crimes she has committed against humanity.

6.0 P.M.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The greater part of the questions discussed to-day have been those that fall naturally to the consideration of my Department. On the larger issues, of course, I shall say nothing. There is nothing that any Member of this House could usefully add to the speech of the Prime Minister. But on one or two of the smaller points the House will, perhaps, think it only courteous that I should reply to the observations of hon. Members. There was one note struck by the hon. Member (Mr. Seddon) which I do not think has been struck often enough either in this Debate or in similar Debates on other occasions. We so frequently discuss these matters as though it were only the British Government that is concerned. We cannot too often remind ourselves, while the Peace Conference is in existence, there is hardly one of those considerations to which we have devoted our minds to-day which is not a consideration for the four great Powers in the first instance and in many cases for many other Powers, and not a consideration solely for the Prime Minister or His Majesty's Government. It is no
secret that the interests of Poland are matters of particularly tender solicitude, not only to His Majesty's Government, but to the representatives of the Allies in Paris. An hon. Member desired that some pledge or guarantee should be given in regard to the recognition of Admiral Koltchak. All these are matters which concern the Entente and the Allies, and it is not possible for any spokesman in this House to pledge the Government on these matters: they are questions purely for the consideration of the Peace Conference in Paris. All one can do is to make a note of the suggestions of hon. Members and, if need be, draw the attention of our own delegates to what those opinions are.
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) touched on some aspects of the blockade. I am for the time being responsible for British interests in the blockade, and I should wish to have had an earlier opportunity of allaying some of the apprehensensions and dismissing some of the misapprehensions that exist in regard to the blockade. The right hon. Gentleman says, in his judgment, the continuance of the blockade is no longer necessary in military interests. Up to now the blockade has been maintained during the Armistice period almost exclusively for military reasons. If the time should come—and it may come quickly—when the high Military or Naval Authorities agree that the blockade is no longer necessary as an instrument of pressure, I need not assure the House that on the civil side of this question, from the Foreign Office point of view, we shall be only too glad to see the last of it. No one can question that the blockade inflicts hardships and interferes with the re-opening of trade; but such have been the relaxations made recently that the blockade only operates as a blockade of Germany and Hungary. There never has been a political blockade of Russia. There have been physical blockades of Russia. It is quite obvious that as long as the Dardanelles were closed there, was a blockade of the Black Sea. There has been a blockade no doubt of Petrograd. But it may well be said that the difficulties of food supplies in Russia are not those of a blockade, but those which are imposed by physical considerations and the politically confused state of the country. I have a very strong opinion that there is in Russia a sufficient supply of food if it could only have been properly distributed.
If they had in Russia an administrator of the capacity of my right hon. Friend, with the proper machinery at his disposal, there need not be any privation in Russia at all.

Mr. SPOOR: Is it not a fact that every attempt to get wagons has been defeated by the Allies?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I could not speak as to that, but as long as the Soviet Government uses the deprivation of food as one of the chief instruments of government, they cannot expect other people to go out of their way to assist them with food supplies. The food supply of Germany and Hungary is not at present being materially affected by the blockade at all. The question of supply and relief to Central Europe and other countries is now in the hands of the Supreme Economic Council in Paris, of which my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) is the principal delegate. The blockade authorities do not, and cannot, interfere with or hamper the action of the Supreme Economic Council in the provisioning of Central Europe or any other distressed country. I am myself a member of the Supreme Economic Council, and I have taken the responsibility, ever since I have discharged my present duties in regard to the blockade, of saying that I will not take any part in depriving the Central Powers of whatever food can be spared to them from the general food supplies of the world, and in that we have been backed by our Allies throughout. The four Powers represented on the Blockade Council and the Supreme Economic Council have worked with the utmost cordiality in this matter of relieving the privations in Allied, neutral and enemy countries.
I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) in his place. I was a little afraid I should not have an opportunity of referring to his very remarkable speech. I shall not myself seek to combat his views about Bolshevism. During this Debate three or four Members who are, perhaps, entitled to regard themselves as directly representing Labour, have addressed themselves to the subject of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, and they have, I think, left nothing for anybody else to say in regard to his views on Bolshevism. I can hardly believe, although I know how earnest his character is, that he advances those views with complete seriousness. My hon. and gallant Friend was pleased to devote a considerable
part of his remarks to the Foreign Office, which he described as more reactionary than any other Government Department, however reactionary, and he pointed to a happy time when there was in existence a "Garden Suburb" in Downing Street, which exercised some sort of beneficent influence over the Foreign Office. He remarked that since that "Garden Suburb" had disappeared, the Foreign Office had reverted to the courses of reaction. I was a member for two years of what is called the "Garden Suburb" in Downing Street. I am not aware that the "Garden Suburb" ever appeared as such in foreign policy at all. If the Prime Minister's Secretariat— to use a more unfamiliar term—did exercise so tremendous an effect upon foreign policy, it ought to comfort my hon. and gallant Friend to think that a member of it now occupies a humble, but useful position in the Foreign Office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, if you were a stronger man.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know what the view of the other 700 Members of this House would be if I were to act with the kind of strength that would call forth the encomiums of my hon. and gallant Friend. He spoke at one time and another as if the Foreign Office controlled the whole Government, dictated the policy of the Government, and, one would have thought, dictated even the policy of the whole of the Allies. I can assure him, and I do not think I am betraying any secret in saying it, that in point of fact the Foreign Office does not exercise this overwhelming control over the destinies of the universe. My hon. and gallant Friend may know, as he is often in friendly communication with myself and other people at the Foreign Office, how very industrious a body it is, trying to do its best in very difficult circumstances, having regard to the fact that its functions are divided between London and Paris, and that it is not governed by principles of reaction. I must say that I have heard with disappointment my hon. and gallant Friend's reference to the Noble Lord the Acting Secretary of State. He belongs: to a different party from that to which I have the honour to belong, and I dare say his views on many subjects are profoundly different from mine. But I can say, in regard to the great problems that have come up for consideration, during the last few weeks especially, that I have found
him, if I may respectfully say so, as liberal in his views as any of his great predecessors in his great office. I do not think that the House will expect me to go into any further detail.

Mr. BILLING: The evidence of this House can, I think, only be taken as evidence of complete satisfaction with the Prime Minister's latest pronouncement, and the evidence of the complete emptiness of the Opposition Bench as a symbol of vague utility. There was, I think, only one point which occupied my mind in the Prime Minister's address, and that was the effect of his speech on the House, the public, and, what is much more important, the Press. There is no doubt that in the first part of his speech he satisfied an extraordinary amount of anxiety which existed in the minds of many hon. Members as to the attitude of the Government on the very many questions which are before the Peace Conference. Any criticism of Russian policy was merely wasted words after the extreme clearness of his statement. When he said that the sending of troops to Russia was purely for the purpose of preventing the lava of the Bolshevik volcano from overrunning more peaceful lands, I presumed to interrupt him to ask whether he was also prepared to give an undertaking that those troops should only be used for defensive, and not for offensive, operations; but presumably we may accept that from his staement. Now I wish to be allowed to do a most unusual thing. May I extend to the Prime Minister, as an independent Member of this House, a deep, heartfelt expression of appreciation for the courageous speech which he made? I have been used, particularly in the case of the Prime Minister, to look for cunning rather than courage in his addresses. Quite a number of new Members of this House, having regard to the criticisms which have been hurled at him, both in this House, on public platforms, and in the columns of the Press, since his last visit to this country, anticipated that we should see him arrive in a white sheet. I knew quite well that he would arrive with a flaming sword. He did, and proceeded immediately to carry war right into the enemy's camp, that part of the political world which he enjoys so much. I do not know whether many hon. Members of this House appreciated the fact that at any rate the majority of
hon. Members on the Labour Benches—I was sitting among them—listened with considerable interest, and I took the applause which emanated from the Labour Benches as a sign of something which I shall refer to in a moment. I was very satisfied to feel that Labour so applauded. I wonder whether many hon. Members of this House realise that the Prime Minister's speech has put a period on the duration of this Parliament. The Prime Minister has declared war against the strongest Press combine that the world has ever known. The Prime Minister for doing that deserves the good wishes and support of every Member of this House. I do not say that because I have any animus against any Press combine. My views on the Press—and I may say, I believe, without blushing, the views of the Press upon myself—are too well known for me to proceed on any line of attack of that sort. But I do feel that, when the Prime Minister came to this House, he realised that he had either got to succumb to or meet in open combat the most extraordinarily powerful vehicle of public opinion in this country, where that particular class of vehicle is more powerful and penetrating, more influential, more creative of public opinion than even the Press of America.
I suggest that within a few days, possibly within a few hours—for in the stirring times in which we live nine days is a long time for a wonder to last—certain things will happen. To-morrow you will not see any attacks on the Prime Minister, but you will see fulsome flattery in the Press, for the Press are cunning, and those who marked him down are too cunning to defy him to-morrow, but in three or seven days the effect of the Prime Minister's speech will have passed. To really appreciate its effect one needed to be in this House, because, as the Prime Minister would be ready to admit to his intimates, he is a greater actor than an orator, and his charm is as much in gesture as in words. The way in which he held this House to-day is one of the greatest Parliamentary triumphs I have ever seen. I heard one of the most independent men in England, who has the reputation of being possibly as independent as I am myself, saying that the Prime Minister's speech almost made him join the Coalition Government. I trust that no oratory will ever cause me to surrender what I regard as my priceless
position of independence in this House, but I do say that I was swayed by the Prime Minister's speech.
There are many points of view that he expressed that no reasoning man could take exception to. There is nothing to reply to in his speech, but there is one satisfaction. When I saw him take off the gloves, as he did this afternoon, I said to myself that the people who thought they were using him are going to be used by him. Therein lies the hopes of this country. If the people who put him into power, if the people who financed him—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"]—are going to suffer, and if he is going rather to make use of them than to allow them to make use of him, then there is indeed a bright future not only for this country, but more particularly for Labour in this country, which I predict the present Prime Minister will be leading in the next twelve months. It is easy to see the course of events which are likely to take place. The powerful Press upon which he has declared war will gradually show—[An HON. MEMBER: "The cloven hoof"]—yes, the cloven hoof it may be, but it will be done so gradually that nobody will associate it with to-day's speech. Every morning at the breakfast table in your penny, your twopenny or your threepenny Press insidious poison will be at work. Three times on Sunday, by different methods, will that gradually soak in. By cartoon and by caricature in five different editions of evening papers will it gradually be rubbed in, and it will be quite possible to see a group of newspapers which are not renowned for fighting for the Tories, turning on the present Prime Minister and giving the Tories the opportunity which they had well in view when they asked him to be their temporary leader. That may sound an extraordinary prophecy. I hope from the bottom of my heart that it will prove to be true. The only chance I can see for this country is to allow a period of Labour legislation to come into force with the least possible delay. Labour intends to make itself felt in this country and Labour is capable of making itself felt in this country. We fear nothing from Labour which is properly led, and I cannot think that the Labour party could find a finer leader, a man with more vision than the Prime Minister in his most inspired moments. I have distrusted him intensely in the past, not for his expressions of opinion, but through the friends and the company he has kept, and by the
sort of people who supported him at the last election. That is why I fought him tooth and nail at the last election and denounced him from nine platforms every night for fourteen days. If I feel that he is going to use these men rather than be used by them, if I feel that he is going to allow Labour to come into its own, then I think there is hope. Even the friends of the Prime Minister will admit that he is an opportunist. I do not say that in any offensive way. If you are an opportunist in the interest of the country, you could not do better and no one could have a more valuable colleague; but if you are an opportunist in the interest of yourself, you are sometimes a danger to your friends.
I suggest to the Prime Minister a very simple way under the present industrial and political impasse into which his speech will bring him and will bring the Members of this House. That speech will change the life of many political aspirants in this House. It means that we shall have a General Election within six months from now. It means that many Members who adorn these benches, or who should be adorning these benches now, will cease to have the priceless opportunity which they are missing this evening, and will only come into this House by means of a green card instead of another. I suggest to the Prime Minister a way to meet the enemies upon whom he has declared war to-day. Certainly never in the history of this House has a political opponent, a Napoleon of the Press, been more thoroughly trounced from the Treasury Bench than a certain leader of the Press of this country was trounced this afternoon. I am sure that if it were not for the privilege of this House an action for libel by gesture might almost lie. This fight which began this afternoon will end at a General Election. We shall see the Prime Minister going to the country on the Labour ticket. I sincerely hope we shall. Let me offer him this advice: Let him take the bull by the horns, and get rid of every reactionary Tory in the Government immediately on the signing of peace, and put in their places good sound Labour men, if he can find them. There are some good sound Labour men in this House, and if he puts good sound Labour men into his Administration there will be a far greater likelihood of success than by the present Tory jobbers. I am speaking as an old Conservative. I say let the Prime Minister reform his Govern-
ment at the earliest possible moment in the interests of the people of this country and by the people of this country I am not merely speaking of the working classes, because there are a good many men who vote for Labour who do not earn their living by the sweat of their brow. Let him give this country three months' experience of the administrative ability of the various Labour Members whom he shall select, so that he can go with confidence to the country and say, "Send mo back to carry on the administration." Then we shall have a fight between the reactionary Tory and all that is best in Labour, not the Bolsheviks. I had the honour and privilege of first dealing with the Bolsheviks in this House. I dealt with Lenin and Trotsky, and I was denounced by many Labour Members of that day for saying hard things about them, in fact, I was called to order by the Chair. In conclusion—and I hope some of the friends of the Prime Minister will tell him this—I will say, let him take the earliest opportunity of showing the country that Labour can administer, that it can be constructive as well as destructive. Let him form such a Cabinet as will gain the support, not only of the working classes, but of the great middle classes, and even of some of the upper classes, who are not so reactionary as their titles might suggest, because it is capital rather than title that makes men reactionary. Let him do that. Let him go to the country and fight it out between all that is best in Labour and all that is worst in Toryism, and God speed him in his task.

Major JAMESON: My only regret at the end of this Debate is that the Prime Minister was not here in person, in order to have his ears charmed by the eloquent encomium just pronounced by the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing). The hon. Member was fully justified in singling out as the leading note of the Prime Minister's speech the note of courage. The note of courage always appeals to this country, and this House, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will resound as a trumpet outside and among his Friends upon both sides of the House. It is, of course, as the Prime Minister did shadow forth, undoubtedly the fact that probably the peace which will be upon us soon will not be a peace entirely satisfactory to any one party. If a peace of that sort is entirely satisfactory to any one party, it is likely to be extremely un-
just to all the other parties. You cannot entirely please everybody, and you should not entirely please any one party in negotiations of this kind.
I speak here as one of the Members who do not belong to what one might describe at the philo-telegraphist section of these benches, and I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Lieutenant-Colonel Lowther) say that the telegram which was sent was not in any way meant to cast doubt on the confidence with which the Prime Minister was regarded by the great bulk of the House and the country. I do think, after the courageous and eloquent speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon, that he has never stood higher in the confidence of the House and the country than he does to-day. Every sensible man will agree with the Prime Minister when he says that you cannot in these delicate and difficult negotiations have that complete publicity which some people would seem to demand. After all, what is a negotiation of this sort? It is a matter of finding out difficulties, differences, and conflicts of opinion, and then adjusting these differences, finding a middle course, and making all the parties agree on one common basis. You cannot conduct procedure of that sort in the presence of a whole Press gallery and a cinematograph recorder. But that is the sort of thing which some extreme advocates of the new diplomacy appear to wish.
I listened with pleasure to the vindication of the Foreign Office by the hon. Member for the Luton Division (Mr. Harmsworth). I do not think that that vindication was entirely needed. There is hardly a Member, except the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who really needed to be convinced that the Foreign Office was not engaged in an attempt to oppress any of the rising democracies. As the Under-Secretary for the Foreign Office said, the Foreign Office has not the last word in the foreign policy of this country. The Prime Minister is by no means a sleeping partner in these matters, and I do not think that anyone in his wildest dreams could picture the Prime Minister starting upon a sort of new crusade throughout Europe in order to uphold the tyranny of the landholding and aristocratic classes. I do not think that we are likely to see that sort of palinode of Limehouse written by the Prime Minister in letters of blood all over Europe. I think we can have confidence
in the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister, and everybody concerned, that there is certainly no idea that the Government of this country, in all these countries in the East of Europe, is concerned only with maintaining the rule of the landowner and the aristocracy.
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman naturally was remarkable more for what it left out than for what it expressed— on the general question before the Paris Conference, and in the view of every sensible man in this House, quite properly so! But a matter on which he was more explicit was the policy of this country with regard to Russia. That is a burning question in the politics of Europe to-day. I do not underestimate the tremendous difficulties before the Government of this country in selecting a policy with regard to Russia. Every policy with regard to Russia must be a subject of the greatest difficulty which will be open to criticism from all sides. But I do think that this country ought to have some policy. No doubt whatever policy it chooses will be a policy to which there may be great objections. As a matter of fact, the policy of our Government seems to be a sort of sample of all the policies and all the points of view with regard to Russia. In the first place, there is the policy of leaving Russia to herself, and regarding the whole Bolshevik question as an entirely internal affair. If that were so, I would certainly be the last to want to meddle with this sort of internal affair of Russia. I am bound to say from my experience that the general attitude of the people of this country is that they are inclined, if I may use the expression, to be fed-up with Russia and Russians altogether. The fact of the matter is that in the last five years Russia has been, so to speak, going from one circle of Hell to another. Lenin and Trotsky are extremely disagreeable characters.
We must remember we were just as little attracted by the Stunners, the Proto-popoffs and the Rasputins of the Czarist regime. Really, the attitude of this country is—it may be right or wrong— to regard all forms of Russian Government as honeycombed with corruption and treachery and every form of vice a Government can suffer from.
If this were merely an internal Russian affair, Russia should certainly be left to herself. But it is not an internal Russian affair; it is an affair, upon the showing of our Government, is of the most vital importance to all the countries of Europe. I only wish to emphasise that I think the Government will have to make up its mind with regard to Russia. I do not think the ring-fence policy will do. Your ring-fence has broken down and the expense of keeping up that ring-fence is enormous. You can keep sheep in a ringed fence but not ravenous wolves, like the Bolsheviks. Sooner or later you will have to fight the Bolsheviks. You will have to fight them in Russia, at the Vistula, at the Rhine, or at your own doors. It is not a question of our invading the Bolsheviks, but whether they are going to invade us, and the policy of keeping up a defensive war against Bolsheviks is the policy of all defensive wars. The best form of the defensive is the offensive, and I think it would pay the Government to strike a blow at the vitals of Bolshevism and prevent it running over Europe.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Thirteen minutes before Seven of the clock till Tuesday, 29th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.